EVENING  JOURNAL  TRACTS.-No.  14- 


SeJiSd 


OF 


/  in  l*  in  /(can) 


CARL  SCHXJR 

jut  cooper  institute, 


NEW  YORK,  THURSDAY,  SEPTEMBER  13,  1800. 


- - 

Douglasism  Exposed  and  Republicanism  Vindicated, 

* 

• - - 


Fellow-Citizens:  This  meeting  is  called  to 
ratify  the  nominations  of  your  State  Convention. 

I  am  a  stranger  among  you,  and  have  no  imme¬ 
diate  interest  in  the  affairs  of  your  State;  hut 
nevertheless  I  can  tell  you  that  the  citizens  of 
my  State  ratify  your  nominations  as  heartily  as 
you  do.  [Cheers.]  In  the  nomination  of  Morgan 
and  Campbell  they  see  the  guaranty  of  a  glorious 
victory  in  November.  [Applause.]  You  do  not 
expect  me  to  speak  about  State  affairs.  I  will, 
therefore,  at  once  turn  your  attention  to  national 
topics.  [Cheers.]  I  may  draw  heavily  upon  your 
patience.  I  hope  you  will  bear  with  me.  [Cheers.] 

A  Voice — We’ll  stand  it  three  hours.  [Laugh¬ 
ter.] 

In  a  contest  of  great  principles,  like  that  which 
is  now  agitating  the  country,  I  am  little  inclined 
to  discuss  the  personal  qualities  of  candidates ; 
but,  when  the  individual  merits  of  a  man  are  set 
up  as  his  principal  claim  to  the  highest  and  most 
responsible  office  in  the  Republic,  it  is  natural 
that  we  should  feel  obliged  to  examine  his  history 
and  character  with  more  than  ordinary  care. 

It  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  friends  of  Judge 
Douglas  in  the  Northern  States  solicit  the  vote 
of  the  people  on  the  ground  that  he  has  done 
more  for  the  freedom  of  the  Territories,  and  that 
he  is  a  truer  champion  of  free  labor,  and  besides, 
a  greater  statesman,  than  any  living  individual. 
Thus  a  personal  issue  is  urged  upon  us,  and  we 
are  ready  to  accept  it.  This  will  be  the  subject 
of  my  remarks  to-night.  I  shall  not  transgress 
the  limits  of  propriety,  but  I  am  determined  to 
call  things  by  their  right  names. 

What  is  it  that  entitles  Judge  Douglas  to  the 
high-sounding  appellation,  “the  Champion  of 
Freedom,”  or  “  the  greatest  of  living  statesmen'?” 
Is  it  his  past  career,  or  is  it  his  present  position  1 
You  can  survey  the  history  of  this  “Champion 


of  Freedom  ”  at  a  single  glance.  The  Judge  has 
his  Free-Soil  record — what  Northern  Pro-Slavery 
man  has  not  1  But  there  is  hardly  a  prominent 
man  in  political  life  who  has  taken  more  pains 
than  he  to  disclaim  and  apologize  for  his  early 
Anti-Slavery  sentiments.  So  we  may  drop  this 
subject.  What  follows  is  more  instructive. 

In  1820,  the  Missouri  Compromise  was  framed 
as  a  sacred  compact  between  the  two  sections  of 
the  Union.  By  virtue  of  that  Compromise,  Mis¬ 
souri  was  admitted  as  a  Slave  State,  and  Arkan¬ 
sas  as  a  Slave  State  ;  and  thus  the  free  North,  as 
one  party  to  the  contract,  paid  down  its  price  for 
the  Slavery  prohibition  north  of  36°  30'.  Was 
Mr.  Douglas  ever  heard  to  express  any  doubt  as 
to  the  constitutionality  of  the  Missouri  Compro¬ 
mise  so  long  as  it  served  to  augment  the  number 
of  Slave  States  ?  It  was  to  him,  as  to  all  others, 
“  a  sacred  and  inviolable  compact” — as  sacred 
and  inviolable  as  the  Constitution  itself ;  and  he 
cursed  the  “  ruthless  hand”  that  would  dare  to 
break  it  down.  When,  after  the  Mexican  war, 
the  Territories  acquired  for  this  Union  were  to 
be  organized,  he  was  among  the  first  and  fore¬ 
most  who  advocated  the  extension  of  the  Mis¬ 
souri  line  across  the  whole  continent.  What 
wmuld  have  been  the  result  of  that  measure  ?  In 
the  Territories  acquired  from  Mexico  Slavery 
was  abolished  and  prohibited  by  local  legisla¬ 
tion,  but  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line  was 
calculated  to  admit  Slavery  into  all  that  part  of 
it  which  lies  south  of  3G°  30'.  Mark  well :  So 
long  as  the  Missouri  Compromise  served  to  intro¬ 
duce  Slave  States,  he  did  not  dream  of  its  un¬ 
constitutionality.  When  by  the  extension  of  the 
Missouri  line  free  territory  could  be  converted 
into  slave  territory,  he  found  it  so  eminently  con¬ 
venient,  so  excellent  an  arrangement,  that  he  not 
only  proposed  to  preserve  it  in  its  origiual  ex- 


|^"For  Sale  at  toe  Office  of  toe  Albany  Evening  Journal.  Price,  per  Single  Copy,  2c.; 
per  Dozen  Copies,  20c.  ;  per  Hundred,  $1;  per  Thousand,  $8. 


2 


tent,  but  to  run  it  across  the  whole  continent  to 
the  shores  of  the  Pacific  Ocean. 

But  now  the  time  arrives  when  Free  States  are 
to  grow  up  under  the  guaranties  of  the  same 
Missouri  Compromise.  A  new  light  dawns  upon 
Judge  Douglas.  He  rises  in  the  Senate  Cham¬ 
ber,  and  asserts  that  the  Territory  north  of  the 
Missouri  line  can  no  longer  be  exempted  from 
Slavery,  because  the  exclusion  of  Slavery  from 
it — the  very  condition  on  which  Missouri  was 
admitted  as  a  Slave  State — was  at  war  with  the 
fundamental  principles  of  the  Constitution.  The 
same  man  who  had  cursed  as  ruthless,  the  hand 
that  would  violate  the  Missouri  Compromise,  as 
long  as  that  compact  was  beneficial  to  Slavery, 
tore  it  down  with  his  own  hands  as  soon  as  it 
was  to  serve  the  interests  of  Free  Labor.  And  he 
is  the  truest  “  Champion  of  Freedom  !”  How 
wonderful  a  change  !  At  the  time  when  he  pro¬ 
posed  the  extension  of  the  Missouri  line  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  he  was  cither  convinced  of  the  un- 
constitutionality  of  that  compromise,  or  he  was 
not.  If  he  wyas,  how  could  he  conscientiously 
propose  the  extension  and  perpetuation  of  a 
measure  which  he  considered  a  crime  against 
the  Constitution  I  Were  his  conscience  and  his 
convictions  hushed  into  silence  by  the  interests 
of  Slavery  ?  Or  if  he  was  not,  how  did  it  come 
to  pass  that  he  became  so  suddenly  convinced  of 
that  unconstitutionality  the  very  moment  that 
the  preservation  and  execution  of  that  Compro¬ 
mise  would  have  advanced  the  interests  of  free 
labor  ?  How  did  it  happen  that  his  convictions, 
in  all  their  prompt  and  wonderful  transforma¬ 
tions,  always  coincided  so  admirably  with  the 
interests  of  Slavery  I  This  is  indeed  a  most  as¬ 
tonishing  coincidence,  and  I  leave  it  to  your 
sagacity  to  draw  your  conclusions. 

But  Mr.  Douglas  is  still  the  “True  Champion 
of  Free  Labor;  ”  for  it  is  asserted  that  the  Ne¬ 
braska  bill — the  same  measure  which  breaks 
down  the  barriers  to  Slavery — will  by  that  very 
operation  introduce  Free  Labor  into  the  Territo¬ 
ries.  The  thing  is  speedily  brought  to  a  practi¬ 
cal  test.  No  sooner  is  the  Nebraska  bill  enacted 
and  the  Missouri  restriction  struck  down,  than 
Emigrant  Aid  Societies  are  organized  in  the 
Slave  States,  especially  in  Missouri,  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  introducing  Slavery  into  Kansas.  The  his¬ 
tory  of  the  Blue  Lodges  is  familiar  to  you.  Law¬ 
less  bands  of  armed  invaders  pour  into  Kansas, 
take  possession  of  the  ballot-boxes,  bowie-knife 
and  revolver  in  hand,  and  control  the  elections  by 
fraud  and  violence.  Did  Mr.  Douglas  ever  utter 
a  word  of  reproach  or  condemnation  against  the 
Border  Ruffians  of  Missouri  I  Did  he  not  most 
tenderly  excuse  their  atrocities  on  the  plea  of  self- 
defense,  while  it  was  a  notorious  fact  that  thoir 
organization  had  preceded  that  of  the  Free-State 
men  I  And,  mark  well ,  that  immigration  was 
Pro-Slavery. 

Other  Emigrant  Aid  Societies  are  organized  in 
the  Northern  States.  Large  numbers  of  men  go 
to  Kansas,  armed,  indeed,  for  self-defense,  as 
every  pioneer  will  be,  but  with  the  bona  fide 
intention  of  settling  down  upon  the  soil  of  that 
territory  as  permanent  inhabitants ;  and  while 
burning  houses  and  trails  of  blood  mark  the  track 
of  the  Border  Ruffians,  flourishing  farms  and 
industrious  towns  spring  up  under  the  hands  of 
the  Free-State  men.  Do  you  remember  how 
often  Judge  Douglas  emptied  the  vials  of  his 
wrath,  and  cast  denunciations  upon  the  heads  of 


Free  Labor  immigratioa  ?  And ,  mark  well,  that 
immigration  was  Anti  Slavery. 

A  Legislature  is  set  up  by  a  band  of  lawless 
invaders — mostly  Missourians — set  up  by  the 
most  atrocious  violations  of  the  ballot-box,  set 
up  in  defiance  of  all  the  rules  of  constitutional 
government ;  that  Legislature  adopts  the  slave- 
code  of  Missouri  as  the  laws  of  Kansas,  and  adds 
to  them  laws  so  outrageous  in  their  nature  that 
even  Northern  Democrats  quailed  under  the  op¬ 
probrium.  Do  you  remember  that  Judge  Doug¬ 
las  recognized  that  Legislature,  although  its  cri¬ 
minal  origin  was  manifest  to  all,  as  the  highest 
law-giving  authority  of  the  Territory,  and  the 
laws  enacted  by  them,  although  known  to  be  the 
offspring  of  fraud  and  violence,  as  the  valid  laws 
of  Kansas  1  Do  you  remember  how  he  denoun¬ 
ced  every  one  who  wTould  not  submit  as  a  rebel 
and  a  traitor  I  And,  mark  well,  that  Legislature 
and  those  laws  were  Pro-Slavery.  The  Free 
State  settlers  of  Kansas,  then  evidently  a  large 
majority  of  the  population,  go  to  work  and  frame 
a  Constitution.  That  Constitution  was  gotten  up 
in  a  way  hardly  more  irregular  than  the  Consti¬ 
tutions  of  many  States.  It  was  submitted  to  a 
vote  of  the  people,  and  adopted  by  a  large  majo¬ 
rity.  So  it  was  presented  to  Congress.  Do  you 
remember  that  Judge  Douglas  found  no  term  of 
denunciation  too  vile  to  use  it  against  that  Con¬ 
stitution,  and  that  he  stigmatized  those  who  had 
framed  it  as  traitors  who  must  be  struck  down  I 
And,  mark  well,  that  Constitution,  the  choice  of 
the  people  of  Kansas,  was  Anti-Slavery. 

What  a  series  of  wonderful  coincidences  !  So 
far,  whatever  Avas  calculated  to  benefit  Slavery 
in  Kansas,  Judge  Douglas  Avas  sure  to  approve; 
whatever  Avas  calculated  to  serve  the  cause  of 
Free  Labor,  Judge  Douglas  was  sure  to  denounce. 
But  I  must  not  forget  that  he  brought  forward 
other  reasons  for  his  acts  than  the  interest  of 
Slavery.  Ah,  indeed !  Is  it  so  extraordinary 
that  a  man  of  ability,  Avho  stoops  to  do  a  mean 
act,  should  haAre  wit  enough  to  disguise  it  1 
Compare  his  plausibilities  with  these  coinciden¬ 
ces,  and  you  Avill  with  me  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  “  Champion  of  Free  Labor,”  if  he  really 
was  an  enemy  to  Slavery,  loved  his  enemies  much 
better  than  a  good  Christian  ought  to  do. 

But  AA7e  will  be  just  to  him.  Now  we  arrive 
at  a  period  in  his  history  in  which  he  seems  to 
have  acquired  some  title  to  the  esteem  of  his 
countrymen.  We  are  so  little  accustomed  to  see 
that  kind  of  statesmen  do  a  fair  thing,  that  our 
surprise  is  apt  to  stimulate  our  gratitude.  I  al¬ 
lude  to  the  position  assumed  by  Judge  Douglas 
in  the  struggle  about  the  Lecompton  Constitu¬ 
tion.  A  packed  Convention  has  framed  a  Con¬ 
stitution,  fastening  Slavery  upon  Kansas,  and 
refuses  to  submit  it  to  a  vote  of  the  people.  The 
President,  in  a  message,  urges  the  admission  of 
Kansas  as  a  State,  under  that  Constitution  as  it 
stands.  Judge  Douglas,  together  with  the  Re¬ 
publicans,  resists  the  measure ;  not,  indeed,  be¬ 
cause  he  is  opposed  to  Slaver}7 — for  he  solemnly 
!  and  emphatically  protests  that  he  “  does  not  care 
whether  Slavery  be  voted  up  or  voted  down 
but  because  it  is  uncertain  Avhether  the  Lecomp¬ 
ton  Constitution  embodies  the  will  of  the  people. 
The  slaA7e  power  is  arrayed  against  him,  and  for 
the  first  time  in  his  life  the  claim  of  his  being  a 
“Champion  of  Freedom  ”  seems  to  rise  from  the 
level  of  a  ridiculous  absurdity.  I  should  feel 
little  tempted  to  detract  from  the  credit  he  gained 


3 


by  his  attitude  on  that  occasion,  if  the  facts 
which  preceded  and  followed  it  were  not  of  so  un¬ 
mistakable  a  nature  as  to  open  our  eyes  to  the  pe¬ 
culiar  concatenation  of  circumstances  which  made 
it  almost  impossible  for  him  to  act  otherwise. 

And  here  again  we  notice  a  series  of  most  strik¬ 
ing  coincidences.  It  so  happened  that  just  about 
the  time  when  the  Leeompton  question  was  be¬ 
fore  Congress,  Douglas’s  term  as  a  United  States 
Senator  was  about  to  expire.  He  knew  well  that 
his  popularity  at  home  rested  upon  the  popular 
belief  that  he  really  did  work  for  the  cause  of 
Free  Labor.  IIow  stupid  must  the  man  have  bqpn 
not  to  see  that,  saddled  with  the  Leeompton  Con¬ 
stitution,  it  would  have  been  impossible  for  him 
to  keep  up  that  delusion.  So  he  assumed  the 
mask  of  an  advocate  of  popular  rights,  coquetted 
with  the  Republicans  in  order  to  disarm  their 
opposition,  and  went  before  the  people  of  Illinois 
as  a  candidate  for  re-election  to  the  Senate.  What 
right  have  I  to  speak  of  his  assuming  a  mask  1 
I  have  that  right,  if  I  can  show  that  he  threw  it 
off  as  soon  as  his  object  was  gained. 

Review  his  acts  in  connection  with  the  Kansas 
struggle.  Slavery  and  Free  Labor  had  for  years 
waged  their  fierce  war  about  that  unfortunate 
Territory  with  doubtful  success.  Now  at  last  no 
sane  man  could  any  longer  close  his  eyes  against 
the  fact,  that  when  the  Leeompton  outrage  was 
perpetrated,  the  Free  State  men  outnumbered 
their  opponents  almost  ten  to  one.  Their  victory 
might  be  delayed,  but  was  no  longer  doubtful. 
How  had  Douglas  acted  so  long  as  Slavery  had 
a  chance  to  gain  the  preponderance  I  Need  I 
remind  you  of  the  unwavering  solicitude  with 
which  he  defended  the  Border  Ruffians ;  of  the 
fierceness  with  which  he  denounced  the  Free 
State  immigration ;  of  the  virulence  with  which 
he  upheld  the  Border  Ruffian  code  of  laws ;  of 
the  promptness  with  which  he  put  his  foot,  upon 
the  law  of  the  people  expressed  in  the  Free  State 
Constitution;  of  his  brutal,  cynic  sneer  at  the 
agonies  of  a  people  in  distress  1  Was  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  the  Border  Ruffian  Legislature,  the  enact¬ 
ment  of  the  Border  Ruffian  code  of  laws,  a  less 
flagrant  violation  of  popular  rights  than  the  Lc- 
compton  Constitution  1  How  could  he  uphold 
the  former,  and  claim  any  credit  for  opposing  the 
latter1?  Here  is  another  most  wonderful  coinci¬ 
dence.  Just  so  long  as  Slavery  had  a  chance  in 
Kansas,  Douglas  stood  upon  the  side  of  Slavery. 
But  no  sooner  was  the  victory  of  Freedom  sure, 
than  Douglas  was  sure  to  stand  upon  the  strong¬ 
est  side. 

And  now  he  is  held  up  to  our  admiration  as 
the  “  True  Champion  of  Freedom.”  After  having 
done  more  than  any  other  man  in  perpetrating 
the  outrage,  what  merit  is  there  in  helping  to 
prevent  its  final  consummation,  when  it  has  be¬ 
come  manifest  that,  in  spite  of  him ,  that  con¬ 
summation  has  become  impossible  I  Look  at  it. 
The  Nebraska  bill,  as  1  heard  my  friend  Grim- 
shaw  in  Illinois  illustrate  it,  had  set  fire  to  the 
edifice  of  Territorial  Liberty.  The  Republican 
fire  companies  are  vigorously  at  work  ;  the  Repub¬ 
lican  engines  are  playing  with  full  force,  and  then 
comes  the  very  incendiary,  Douglas,  with  a  little 
tea-spoonful  of  Anti- Leeompton  water,  throws  it 
into  the  flames,  and  then  swells  himself  up  and 
claims  to  have  extinguished  the  conflagration — 
and  so  he  goes  before  the  people  of  Illinois  as 
the  “  True  Champion  of  Freedom.” 

And  this  he  would  hardly  have  had  the  cour¬ 
age  to  do,  had  not,  as  is  now  known  to  all  of  us, 


the  indignant  threats  of  the  gallant  Broderick 
overawed  him  when  he  was  about  to  compromise 
with  Buchanan. 

I  repeat,  I  would  never  stoop  to  question  the 
motives  which  actuated  him  in  the  Leeompton 
struggle,  had  not  the  acts  which  preceded  it 
made  his  honesty  doubtful ;  and  had  not  those 
that  followed  it  precluded  all  belief  in  the  sin¬ 
cerity  of  his  repentance.  If  he  was  honest,  you 
will  be  obliged  to  confess,  it  is  exceedingly  hard 
to  prove  it  on  him. 

On  the  strength  of  this  exploit  he  succeeded 
in  carrying  his  point  in  Illinois  ;  not  indeed  by  a 
popular  majority,  for  that  was  against  him,  but 
by  an  old  Gerrymandering  apportionment.  It  was 
one  of  those  lugubrious  victories,  which  consist 
in  a  narrow  escape  from  total  annihilation.  But 
his  seat  is  regained  ;  and  now  he  throws  a  wist¬ 
ful  eye  upon  a  higher  seat;  and  remembers  at 
once  that  the  Democratic  road  to  the  White 
House  leads  through  the  slaveholding  States.  So 
he  turns  his  face  Southward  without  delay,  and 
sets  out  on  a  trip  down  the  Mississippi.  He  is 
at  once  betrayed  into  making  a  few  remarks, 
here  and  there,  to  spontaneous  gatherings.  Sud¬ 
denly  we  find  the  man  who  had  tried  to  delude 
the  people  of  Illinois  into  the  belief  that  under 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill,  the  people  had  a 
right  to  exclude  slavery,  in  the  South  busily  apo¬ 
logising  for  it ;  and  now  behold  the  old  Douglas 
again  wielding  the  weapon  of  sophistry  with  un¬ 
blushing  boldness,  and  endeavoring  to  make  his 
doctrine  of  Popular  Sovereignty  palatable  to  tho 
Southern  stomach. 

The  development  of  the  Popular  Sovereignty 
doctrine  is  one  of  the  most  instructive  chapters 
in  the  history  of  our  days.  It  shows  how  easily 
the  popular  mind  can  be  obfuscated  by  a  so¬ 
phistical  plausibility,  and  how  easily  correct 
principles  are  lost  sight  of  in  the  confused  strug¬ 
gle  of  interests  and  aspirations.  Future  genera¬ 
tions  will  scrutinize,  with  curious  astonishment 
the  history  of  our  days,  and  wonder  at  the  tem¬ 
porary  success  of  so  transparent  a  fraud.  Per¬ 
mit  me  a  brief  digression. 

Popular  Sovereignty,  in  the  true  sense  of  the 
term,  means  the  sovereignty  of  all  individuals, 
so  regulated  by  law  as  to  protect  the  rights  and 
liberties  of  any  one  against  the  encroachments 
of  any  other,  and  so  organized  by  political  in¬ 
stitutions  as  to  give  a  common  expression  to  the 
collective  will.  Its  natural  basis  is  the  equality 
of  the  rights  of  all  men.  Its  natural  end  is  the 
protection  of  all  individuals  in  the  exercise  of 
their  rights  and  in  the  enjoyment  of  their  liber¬ 
ties.  Hence  it  precludes  the  idea  of  Slavery 
in  all  its  forms.  Apply  this  true  Popular 
Sovereignty  to  the  Territories,  and  we  are  will¬ 
ing  to  accept  it — nay,  it  is  the  very  thing  which 
we  are  contending  for.  But  is  this  what  Doug¬ 
las,  in  the  Nebraska  bill,  contemplated  ?  By  no 
means,  llis  Popular  Sovereignty  is  based  upon 
the  assumption  that  one  class  of  men  has  the 
power — has  the  right — to  strip  another  class  of 
.heir  natural  rights,  and  to  hold  them  as  slaves. 

For  argument  sake,  let  us  follow  him  in  his 
course  of  reasoning,  and  suppose  the  white  pop¬ 
ulation  of  the  Territories  had  the  right  to  hold  a 
portion  of  the  inhabitants  as  property.  So,  we 
iave  to  lower  the  standard  of  Popular  Sove¬ 
reignty  one  degree  !  Listen  to  the  language  of 
the  Kansas  and  Nebraska  bill : 

“  It  is  the  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  act  not  to 
legislate  Slavery  into  any  State  or  Territory,  nor  to  exclude 


4 


it  therefrom,  but  to  leave  the  people  thereof  perfectly  free 
to  form  and  regulate  their  institutions  in  their  own  way, 
subject  only  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

At  first,  one  would  suppose  this  bill  gave  the 
people  of  the  Territories  the  sovereign  l  ight  to 
introduce  Slavery,  provided,  always,  that  Sla¬ 
very  could  not  go  there  unless  introduced  by  a 
positive  act  of  Territorial  legislation.  Is  that 
what  Douglas’s  principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty 
contemplated  ?  By  no  means  !  For,  according 
to  him,  a  slaveholder  may  introduce  his  slave 
propei  ty,  and  thereby  introduce  and  establish 
Slavery  in  a  Territory  without  that  positive  act 
of  Territorial  legislation. 

We  have,  therefore,  to  lower  the  standard  of 
Popular  Sovereignty  another  degree  !  One  would 
suppose  that,  Slavery  so  being  admitted  at  first, 
the  people  of  the  Territory  would  have  at  least 
the  sovereign  right  to  remove  and  exclude  it  by 
a  positive  act  of  Territorial  legislation.  Is  that 
what  Judge  Douglas’s  principle  of  Popular 
Sovereignty  contemplated  ?  By  no  means  !  He 
told  you  at  first  that  this  was  a  question  to  be 
decided  by  the  Supreme  Court,  then  he  told  you 
that  the  sovereignty  of  a  Territory  remains  in 
abeyance,  suspended  in  the  United  States  ;  in 
trust  for  the  people  until  they  shall  be  admitted 
into  the  Union  as  a  State  ;  and,  at  last,  after  the 
Illinois  campaign,  he  dropped  the  expression, 
“  excluding  Slavery,”  altogether.  It  is  signifi¬ 
cant  that  the  attempts  of  the  people  of  Nebraska 
and  Kansas  to  exclude  Slavery  by  law,  were 
promptly  put  down  by  the  vetoes  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernors  of  those  Territories ;  vetoes  exercised  by 
virtue  of  the  power  conferred  on  the  Territorial 
Governments  by  Douglas’s  own  Nebraska  bill. 

Thus  we  have  descended  two  great  steps  from 
the  true  idea  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  without 
having  reached  Judge  Douglas’s  great  principle  ; 
and  you  will  perceive  that  the  true  Popular  Sove¬ 
reignty  has  already  disappeared  long  ago.  But 
let  us  lower  the  standard  of  Popular  Sovereignty 
still  another  degree,  and  we  may  hope  that  the 
deeper  we  sink  the  closer  we  may  approach  J udge 
Douglas’s  position.  At  last  we  find  him  not 
with  a  principle  but  with  an  assumption.  It 
matters  not,  said  he  in  his  Freeport  speech  in 
August,  1858 : 

“  It  matters  not  what  way  the  Supreme  Court  may  here¬ 
after  decide  as  to  the  abstract  question,  whether  Slavery  may 
go  or  may  not  go  into  a  Territory  under  the  Constitution, 
the  people  have  the  lawful  means  to  introduce  it.  or  ex¬ 
clude  it,  as  they  please ;  for  the  reason  that  Slavery  cannot 
exist  a  day  or  an  hour  anywhere  unless  it  is  supported  by 
local  police  regulations.  Those  police  regulations  can 
only  be  established  by  the  local  legislature,  and  if  the  peo¬ 
ple  are  opposed  to  Slavery  they  will  elect  representatives 
to  that  body  who  will,  by  unfriendly  legislation,  prevent 
the  introduction  of  it  into  their  midst.” 

This  then  is  the  great  principle  of  Popular 
Sovereignty.  It  contemplates,  not  the  general 
exercise  and  enjoyment  of  equal  rights;  not  that 
Slavery  cannot  go  into  a  Territory  unless  the 
people  introduce  it  by  law ;  not  that  the  people 
have  the  sovereign  right  to  exclude  it  by  a  direct 
act  of  Territorial  legislation;  but  that  they  may 
annoy  and  embarrass  the  slaveholder  in  the  enjoy¬ 
ment  of  his  slave  property,  so  as  to  tease  Slavery 
out  of  the  Territory  if  they  can.  If,  ten  years  ago, 
a  man  had  undertaken  to  call  this  Popular  Sov¬ 
ereignty,  the  people  would  have  suspected  him 
of  serious  mental  derangement.  Is  not  really 
this  kind  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  according  to 
Mr.  Lincoln’s  striking  illustration,  “  as  thin  as  the 
“homoeopathic  soup  that  was  made  by  boiling 
“  the  shadow  of  a  pigeon  that  had  been  starved 

to  death  ?”  It  would  seem  impossible  to  make 


it  any  thinner,  and  yet  Mr.  Douglas  undertakes 
this  incredible  task.  After  having  tried  to  de¬ 
lude  the  voters  of  Illinois  into  the  belief  that 
consistently  with  his  position,  tbe  people  of  the 
Territory  may,  in  some  round-about  way,  remove 
Slavery,  this  “  True  Champion  of  Freedom  ”  goes 
South  and  proves  there  that  Slavery  has  a  legal 
existence  in  the  Territories.  We  find  him  at 
New  Orleans,  and  the  same  man  who  at  Freeport 
had  told  the  people  of  Illinois  that  it  mattered  not 
what,  the  Supreme  Court  might  decide,  as  to  tbe 
abstract  question,  whether  Slavery  may  or  may 
ndt  go  into  a  Territory — the  same  man  speaks  to 
tbe  people  of  Louisiana  as  follows  : 

“  I,  in  common  with  the  Democracy  of  Illinois,  accept 
pie  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in 
tbe  case  of  Dred  Scott,  as  an  authoritative  interpretation  of 
the  Constitution  In  accordance  with  that  decision  we 
hold  that  slaves  are  property :  and  hence  on  an  equal  footing 
with  other  property,  and  the  owner  of  the  slave  has  the  same 
right  to  move  i:  to  a  Territory,  and  carry  his  slave  property 
with  him,  as  the  owner  of  any  other  property  has  logo 
there  and  carry  his  property.” 

If  there  could  be  any  misunderstanding  as  to 
the  meaning  of  this  sentence,  he  has  removed 
the  possibility  of  it  by  an  expression  he  used  in 
debate  in  the  Senate  on  the  23d  of  February* 
1859: 

“Slaves,  according  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  being 
property,  stand  on  an  equal  footing  with  all  other  kinds  of 
property  ;  and  there  is  just  as  much  obligation  on  the  part 
of  the  Territorial  Legislature  to  protect  slaves,  as  every 
other  species  of  property,  as  there  is  to  protect  horses, 
cattle,  dry  goods  and  liquors.” 

And  mark  well,  Judge  Douglass  never  forgets 
tbe  liquors!  There  is  Douglas,  tbe  candidate 
for  the  Senatorship  of  Illinois,  who  does  not  care 
what  way  tbe  Supreme  Court  may  decide;  and 
here  is  Douglas,  tbe  candidate  for  the  Presidency, 
who  declares  the  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court 
to  be  the  authoritative  interpretation  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution. 

What  then  did  tbe  Supreme  Court  in  the  Dred 
Scott  case  decide  ?  Let  me  quote  from  Howard’s 
official  report  some  of  the  points  laid  down  in 
that  case :  • 

“Every  citizen  has  a  right  to  take  with  him  into  the  Ter¬ 
ritory  any  article  of  property  which  the  Constitution  oi'tho 
United  States  recognizes  as  property.” 

“  The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  recognizes  slaves 
as  property,  and  pledges  the  Federal  Government  to  de¬ 
fend  it.” 

“That  act  of  Congress,  therefore,  prohibiting  a  citizen 
of  the  United  States  taking  with  him  his  slaves  when  he 
removes  into  the  Territory  in  question  to  reside,  is  an  act 
of  authority  over  the  private  property  which  is  thus  war¬ 
ranted  by  the  Constitution.” 

“While  it  remains  a  Territory  Congress  may  legisla'e 
over  it  within  the  scrpe  of  its  constitutional  powers  in 
relation  to  citizens  of  the  United  States,  and  may  establish 
a  Territorial  Government,  and  the  form  of  the  local  govern¬ 
ment  must  be  regulated  by  the  direction  of  Congress,  but 
with  powers  not  exceeding  those  which  Congress  itself,  by 
«the  Constitution,  is  authorized  to  exercise  over  the  citizens 
of  the  United  States  in  respect  to  the  rights  of  property.” 

If  this  needs  any  illustration,  I  may  furnish  it 
by  quoting  a  few  more  sentences  from  the  deci¬ 
sion  : 

“No  word  can  be  found  in  the  Constitution  which  gives 
Congress  power  over  slave  property,  or  entitles  property 
of  that  kind  to  lei-s  protection  than  property  of  any  other 
description  ;  only  the  power  conferred  is  the  poicer  coupled 
with  the  duty  of  guarding  and  protecting  the  owner  in  his 
j  rights .” 

This,  then,  is  what  Dougins  calls  the  authori¬ 
tative  interpretation  of  the  Constitution,  and  be 
j  well  understands  what  it  means;  for  did  be  not 
j  say  that  there  is  just  as  much  obligation  on  the 
part  of  tbe  Territorial  Legislature  to  protect  pro¬ 
perty  in  slaves  as  there  is  to  protect  any  other 
species  of  property  I  Well,  but  what  becomes 
i  of  his  great  principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty? 


5 


What  becomes  even  of  that  homoeopathic  dilution 
called  unfriendly  legislation  1  Congress  can,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Dred  Scott  decision,  which  Doug¬ 
las  acknowledges  to  be  “  the  authoritative  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Constitution,”  confer  no  power 
which  itself  does  not  possess.  The  only  power 
it  possesses  in  regard  to  slave  property  is  the 
power  of  guarding  and  protecting  the  owner  in 
his  rights,  and  that  power  is  coupled  with  the 
duty  to  do  so.  Hence  the  only  power  Congress 
can  confer  upon  the  Territorial  Government,  in 
relation  to  slave  property,  is  the  power  coupled 
with  the  duty  of  guarding  and  protecting  the 
owner  in  his  rights. 

Thus  we  are  obliged  to  lower  the  standard  of 
Popular  Sovereignty  still  another  degree,  in  or¬ 
der  to  reach  Douglas’s  great  principle.  It  does 
not  even  consist  in  the  right  of  the  people  to 
tease  Slavery  out  of  a  Territory ;  it  consists  in 
the  power  of  a  Territorial  Legislature,  coupled 
with  the  duty,  to  pass  acts  for  the  protection  of 
Slavery,  but  by  no  means  against  it.  The  as¬ 
sumed  power  to  pass  unfriendly  laws  seems  to  be 
changed  into  the  duty  to  pass  friendly  laws.  I 
call  this  Popular  Sovereignty  with  a  vengeance ! 
It  is  like  mock  turtle  soup — there  is  soup  enough, 
but  not  a  particle  of  turtle. 

It  is  true,  Judge  Douglas  was  in  the  habit  of 
quibbling  a  little  about  the  meaning  of  the  Dred 
Scott  decision ;  and  the  Wickliffe  resolution  adopt¬ 
ed  by  his  friends  at  Baltimore  has  helped  him 
over  his  difficulties.  It  is  to  the  following  effect : 

“  Resolved ,  That  it  is  in  accordance  with  the  true  inter¬ 
pretation  of  the  Cincinnati  platform,  that,  during  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  a  Territorial  Government,  the  measure  of  re¬ 
striction,  whatever  it  may  be,  imposed  by  the  Federal 
Constitution  on  the  powers  of  the  Territorial  Legislatures, 
over  the  subject  of  domestic  relations,  as  the  same  has  been 
or  may  hereafter  be  finally  determined  by  the  Supreme 
Court  of  the  United  States,  shall  be  respected  by  good 
citizens  and  enforced  with  promptness  and  fidelity  by  eve¬ 
ry  branch  of  the  Federal  Government.’’ 

To  all  of  which  Judge  Douglas,  in  his  letter 
of  acceptance,  most  graciously  assents. 

We  hear  no  longer  of  the  “  rights  of  the  people 
“of  the  Territories  to  form  and  regulate  their 
“domestic  institutions  in  their  own  way,”  but 
now,  “  of  the  measure  of  restrictions  imposed 
“  upon  the  Territorial  Legislatures  over  the  sub- 
“  ject  of  domestic  relations.”  The  change  is  very 
significant;  whatever  these  restrictions,  they  are, 
or  may  hereafter  be,  finally  determined  by  the 
Supreme  Court  /ff  the  United  States.  Let  me 
remind  you  that  previous  to  the  election  of  Mr. 
Buchanan,  whenever  the  question  was  put  as  to 
the  right  of  property  in  slaves  under  the  new 
Territorial  Government,  Judge  Douglas’s  regular 
reply  was  “  that  is  a  question  for  Congress  to 
“  decide.”  That  answer  was  the  forerunner  of 
the  Dred  Scott  decision.  We  are  now  told  “  as 
“  shall  hereafter  be  finally  determined  by  the  Su- 
“  preme  Court  of  the  United  States.”  What  will 
follow  1  The  restriction,  already  finally  deter¬ 
mined,  we  know;  it  is,  that  Government  cannot 
impair  the  right  of  property,  in  slaves;  but  has 
the  power,  coupled  with  the  duty,  to  protect  and 
guard  the  owner  in  his  rights.  “  Restrictions 
which  may  hereafter  be  “  finally  determined  1” 
Heaven  knows  what  they  will  be.  But,  “  what¬ 
ever  they  may  be”  Douglas  is  pledged  to  en¬ 
force  them  “  with  promptness  and  fidelity.” 

So  it  turns  out  that  his  Popular  Sovereignty 
fastens  Slavery  more  irremovable  upon  a  Terri 
torv  as  such,  than  it  is  fastened  upon  South 
Carolina  herself.  The  people  of  South  Carolina 
iu  their  sovereign  capacity  mav  abolish  Slavery 


whenever  they  see  fit.  The  people  of  Kansas  in 
their  Territorial  condition  cannot.  The  people 
of  South  Carolina  have  the  right  to  discourage 
Slavery  by  unfriendly  legislation;  the  people  of 
Kansas  are  bound  to  guard  and  protect  the  slave¬ 
owner  in  his  rights,  and  are  restricted  from  pass¬ 
ing  laws  violating  that  obligation.  The  Federal 
Government  has  no  power  to  interfere  in  South 
Carolina,  but  as  soon  as  Kansas  dares  to  disregard 
the  “  restriction,”  Judge  Douglas,  if  lie  should 
become  President  of  the  United  States,  would 
stand  pledged  to  enforce  that  restriction  “  with 
“  promptness  and  fidelity.”  And  after  having 
struck  down  the  freedom  of  the  Territories,  this 
“  Champion  of  Freedom”  will  sneak  behind  the 
judicial  despotism  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and 
like  the  murderer  of  Banquo,  tell  you  that  “  Thou 
canst  not  say  I  did  it  1” 

But  I  say  he  did  doit.  The  character  of  his 
doctrine  of  Popular  Sovereignty  was  determined 
by  the  decision  of  the  question,  whether  or  not 
slave  property,  as  such,  could  be  introduced  into 
a  Territory  before  Slavery  was  established  there 
by  a  positive  act  of  Territorial  legislation.  If 
this  question  was  decided  in  the  affirmative  the 
doctrine  that  Slavery,  as  the  creature  of  local 
law,  was  totally  abandoned.  If  Slavery  could 
exist  in  a  Territory  without  being  established  by 
local  law,  then  it  existed  there  by  a  law  higher 
than  local  law,  and  that  could  be  no  other  than 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  In  this 
case  every  sane  man  must  see  that  then  Slavery 
cannot  be  removed  from  a  Territory  by  a  mere 
act  of  the  Territorial  legislature,  whether  direct 
or  indirect;  and  Mr.  Douglas  need  not  affect  any 
surprise  at  the  doctrines  his  Southern  opponents 
hold.  They  are  the  natural,  the  legitimate,  the 
logical  offspring  of  bis  own  position.  When  he 
conceded  that  all-important  point — and  he  did 
concede  it — this  “  Champion  of  Freedom”  was 
either  aware  of  the  consequence,  or  he  was  not 
If  he  was  not,  lie  is  liable  to  the  charge  of  gross 
stupidity  ;  if  he  was,  he  is  liable  to  the  charge  of 
deliberate  betrayal  of  the  cause  of  Free  Labor, 
covered  with  the  grossest  hypocrisy.  In  what 
character  do  you  like  your  “Champion  of  Free¬ 
dom”  best  ?  As  one  who  has  not  sagacity  enough 
to  defend  it,  or  as  one  who  deliberately  betrays 
it?  There  are  cases  where  stupidity  is  no  less 
criminal  than  hypocrisy. 

This,  then,  is  the  “  great  principle  of  Popular 
Sovereignty.”  This  is  “leaving  the  people  to 
*'  form  and  regulate  their  own  domestic  institu- 
“  tions  in  their  own  way.”  I  am  warranted  in 
saying  that,  if  ever  a  gigantic,  unscrupulous, 
shameless  fraud  was  attempted  upon  a  free  peo¬ 
ple — if  history  ever  furnished  an  example  of 
unblushing,  scandalous,  revolting  hypocrisy,  it 
is  this  “True  Champion  of  Freedom  ;”  to  fasten 
Slavery  irremovably  upon  the  Territories,  and 
calling  it  “  leaving  the  people  perfectly  free  to 
“  regulate  their  own  domestic  institutions  !” — to 
strip  the  people  of  every  right  to  regulate  their 
own  affairs,  and  to  call  it  Popular  Sovereignty ! 
Strike  the  word  “  demagoguism”  out  of  your 
dictionaries  if  you  do  not  want  to  apply  it  here. 
But,  although  we  may  understand  how  inordi¬ 
nate,  desperate  ambition  should  resort  to  such 
frauds,  it  remains  truly  wonderful  that  so  many 
thousands  have  suffered  themselves  to  be  deceiv¬ 
ed  by  them. 

Is  it  surprising  that  the  “  Champion  of  Free¬ 
dom  ”  who  defends  such  theories  should  be  fouud 
a  little  unreliable  in  practice?  How  clamorous 


he  was  against  the  Lecompton  Constitution ! 
What  a  terrible  idea,  that  a  Territory  should  be 
forced  into  the  Union  as  a  State  with  a  Constitu¬ 
tion  not  approved  by  the  people !  At  last  the 
people  of  Kansas  frame  a  new  Constitution ;  it  is 
submitted  to  the  people;  it  is  approved  by  a 
large  majority.  All  conditions  of  admission  ri¬ 
gorously  complied  with,  they  knock  at  the  Union, 
and  we  expect  to  see  our  “  True  Champion  of 
Freedom  ”  rush  to  the  rescue  with  unabated  zeal 
— for  his  great  point  is  gained.  But  where  is 
Douglas  !  The  House  of  Representatives  votes 
in  favor  of  the  admission ;  the  decision  of  the 
question  depends  upon  the  action  of  the  Senate. 
The  matter  is  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Territories.  That  Committee  consists  of  seven 
members.  Douglas  is  one  of  them  ;  but  he  does 
not  attend  their  meetings.  The  vote  of  the  Com¬ 
mittee  stands  3  to  3.  Douglas’s  vote  can  decide 
the  question  in  the  Committee,  in  favor  of  the 
admission  of  Kansas.  It  is  well  known  how  far 
the  action  of  a  Committee  goes  to  determine  the 
action  of  the  Senate ;  but  Douglas  does  not  vote  ! 
The  question  remains  in  this  suspended  state  for 
some  time.  The  country  looks  for  the  action  of 
the  Committee ;  the  action  of  the  Committee  is 
blocked  by  a  tie ;  but  Douglas  does  not  vote ! 
Douglas  who  had  declared  so  fiercely  against 
the  admission  under  a  Constitution  which  the 
people  did  not  want ,  does  not  vote  when  the  ad¬ 
mission  is  applied  for  with  a  Constitution  which 
the  people  do  want.  Douglas,  the  “  True  Cham¬ 
pion  of  Freedom,”  holding  the  fate  of  Free  Kan¬ 
sas  in  that  Committee  in  his  hands,  Douglas  does 
not  vote  !  How  is  this  I  When  he  opposed  the 
Lecompton  Constitution  he  was  a  candidate  for 
reelection  to  the  Senate.  But  things  have  chang¬ 
ed  since.  Douglas  now  acts  as  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency.  The  same  man  who  in  1857  had 
to  propitiate  the  Free  people  of  Illinois,  has  now 
to  propitiate  the  people  of  the  South  ;  and  instead 
of  deciding  the  report  of  the  Committee  in  favor 
of  the  admission  of  Kansas  as  a  Free  State,  he 
is  busily  engaged  in  preparing  his  15th  of  May 
speech,  which  is  to  convince  the  slaveholders 
that  his  great  principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty 
is  working  favorably  for  the  introduction  of  Slave 
States — the  Free  State  of  Kansas  is  kept  out  of 
the  Union  once  more  and  he  is  held  up  as  the 
“  True  Champion  of  Freedom.”  Poor  Freedom 
— then  the  Champion’s  belt  lies  like  a  halter 
around  her  neck. 

Here  I  will  stop.  I  might  go  on  for  hours, 
piling  fact  upon  fact,  conclusion  upon  conclusion, 
argument  upon  argument,  until  the  putrid  accu¬ 
mulation  of  fraud  and  hypocrisy,  exposed  to  the 
sunlight,  would  torture  your  very  nostrils.  It  is 
enough.  I  will  dismiss  Mr.  Douglas,  “the  True 
Champion  of  Freedom,”  and  devote  a  few  remarks 
to  Mr.  Douglas,  “the  greatest  of  livingstatesmen.” 

True  statesmanship  can  rest  upon  no  other  ba¬ 
sis  but  an  intimate  familiarity  with  the  philoso¬ 
phy  of  Government,  and  a  thorough  knowledge 
of  the  sources  and  effects  of  political  institutions. 
It  can  have  no  other  aim  and  end  but  the  con¬ 
servation  of  sound  constitutional  principles  and 
their  application  most  favorable  to  the  develop¬ 
ment  of  popular  liberty.  Let  us  see  how  ‘‘the 
greatest  of  living  statesmen”  stands  the  test.  I 
shall  confine  myself  to  a  few  facts  of  vital  im¬ 
portance. 

It  is  one  of  the  striking  peculiarities  of  our 
Federal  polity  that  the  different  branches  of  our 
General  Government  enjoy  a  certain  independence 


in  the  exercise  of  the  functions  respectively  as¬ 
signed  to  them.  In  order  to  guard  against  the 
danger  and  abuses  which  might  arise  from  that 
independence,  the  power  necessary  for  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  those  functions  had  to  be  carefully  limi¬ 
ted  and  strictly  defined.  Thus  a  system  of  checks 
and  balances  was  established  in  our  Constitution, 
which  is  calculated  to  render  usurpation  impos¬ 
sible.  It  is,  indeed,  said  that  the  Executive 
branch  of  our  Government  is  responsible  to  the 
people,  but  that  responsibility  consists  only  in  its 
being  liable  to  impeachment.  For  the  Secieta- 
ries  of  the  President  do  not,  like  the  Ministers 
of  the  Crown  of  England,  sit  upon  the  benches 
of  the  Legislature,  subject  to  the  immediate  con¬ 
trol  of  the  parliamentary  majority.  Our  Execu¬ 
tive,  unlike  that  of  every  constitutional  govern¬ 
ment,  is  stable  for  a  term  of  four  years,  remova¬ 
ble  only  on  the  conviction  of  treason,  bribery, 
and  other  high  crimes  and  misdemeanors.  But 
already  Jefferson  told  you  that  impeachment  is  a 
mere  scare-crow.  So  the  Executive  moves  inde¬ 
pendently  within  the  circle  of  its  own  powers. 
It  is,  therefore,  of  vital  importance  that  this  cir¬ 
cle  should  be  strictly  drawn,  and  those  powers 
of  the  Legislature  which  form  a  necessary  sup¬ 
plement  to  the  powers  of  the  Executive  be  jeal¬ 
ously  preserved. 

If  this  system  of  checks  and  balances  is  of  a 
general  necessity,  it  is  doubly  indispensable  in  all 
matters  relating  to  the  administration  of  our 
foreign  policy.  It  is  natural  and  proper  that  in 
all  diplomatic  transactions  with  foreign  govern¬ 
ments,  our  Executive  should  be  intrusted  with  a 
certain  discretion.  But  the  Cabinet  of  the  Pre¬ 
sident,  not  being  subject  to  our  Legislature  in 
the  same  manner  as  the  British  Ministry  is  to 
Parliament,  it  is  essentia]  that  in  the  absence  of 
immediate  control,  another  system  of  checks 
should  be  placed  around  the  Executive  power. 
This  was  done  in  the  Constitution  by  making, 
not,  indeed,  the  diplomatic  transactions  them¬ 
selves,  but  their  ends  and  results,  immediately 
dependent  upon  the  direct  action  of  Congress. 
Thus,  no  treaty  can  be  made  and  consummated 
without  the  approval  of  the  Senate  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote.  And  Congress  alone  shall  have 
power  to  declare  war.  Why  was  the  war-making 
power  not  intrusted  to  the  Executive!  It  is 
hardly  necessary  to  describe  to  you  the  part 
which  wars  have  played  in  the  history  of  the 
world — the  blood  of  millions  spilled,  not  seldom, 
for  paltry  causes ;  the  happiness  of  generations 
destroyed  ;  the  prosperity  of  countries  blighted 
for  centuries  ;  the  rights  of  men  trodden  under 
foot;  the  progress  of  civilization  set  back  for 
ages  !  Is  it  wonderful  that  the  framers  of  our 
Constitution  should  not  have  intrusted  a  single 
officer  with  ’.he  formidable  power  of  bringing  all 
these  calamities  upon  the  Republic! — an  officer, 
too,  who,  for  a  certain  time,  does  not  stand  under 
the  immediate  control  of  the  representatives  of 
the  people.  The  war-making  power — one  most 
extensive,  involving  the  interests  of  a  nation — is 
certainly  one  of  the  highest  attributes  of  sove¬ 
reignty,  and  it  was  mostly  reserved  to  that  branch 
of  the  government  in  which  the  sovereignty  of 
the  people  is  most  comprehensively  represented. 
The  power  to  declare  war  being  withheld  from 
the  Executive,  and  expressly  lodged  in  Congress, 
it  follows  that  the  Executive  can  have  no  autho¬ 
rity  to  use  warlike  measures,  unless  specially  au¬ 
thorized  by  Congress;  for  what  would  the  exclu¬ 
sive  power  to  declare  war  be  worth  to  Congress, 


* 

\ 


7 


if  the  power  to  use  belligerent  measures  without 
special  authority — that  is,  to  bring  on  or  make 
war — were  vested  in  the  Executive!  This  is 
one  of  the  distinguishing  features  of  our  consti¬ 
tutional  system.  It  cannot  be  changed  without 
breaking  down  the  safeguards  of  our  national 
security.  No  man  who  understands  the  spirit 
of  American  institutions,  will  fail  to  see  this,  and 
he  who  does  not,  may  be  said  not  to  comprehend 
the  tendency  of  our  fundamental  laws.  Is  it  not 
surprising  that  we  should  find  such  a  man  in  him 
who  is  held  up  to  us  as  “  the  greatest  of  living 
statesmen  V’  For  a  number  of  years,  wherever 
there  was  a  difficulty  between  this  and  a  foreign 
government,  Mr.  Douglas  endeavored  again  and 
again  to  invest  the  President  with  the  power  of 
using  warlike  measures  at  his  own  discretion, 
without  waiting  for  the  action  of  Congress. 
Here  is  a  bill  introduced  by  Douglas  on  the  24th 
of  May,  1858: 

“  Be  it  enacted ,  4*c.,  That  in  case  of  flagrant  violations 
of  the  laws  of  nations  by  outrage  upon  the  flag,  or  soil,  or 
citizens  of  the  United  States,  or  upon  their  property,  under 
circumstances  requiring  prompt  redress,  and  when,  in  the 
opinion  of  the  President ,  delay  would  be  incompatible 
with  the  honor  and  dignity  of  the  Republic,  the  Presidi  nt 
is  hereby  authorized  to  employ  such  force  as  he  may 
deem  necessary  to  prevent  the  perpetration  of  such  out¬ 
rages,  and  to  obtain  just  redress  and  satisfaction  for  the 
same  when  perpetrated  ;  and  it  shall  be  his  duty  to  lay  the 
facts  of  each  case,  with  the  reasons  for  his  action  in  the 
premises,  before  Congress  at  the  earliest  practicable  mo¬ 
ment  for  such  further  action  thereon  as  Congress  may 
direct.” 

This  bill  was  introduced  at  a  time  when  ves¬ 
sels  belonging  to  the  British  navy,  in  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico,  undertook  to  stop  and  search  American 
merchantmen  on  the  suspicion  of  their  being 
slavers.  The  bill  did  not  pass ;  but  whenever 
there  was  an  opportunity,  be  it  in  a  discussion  on 
appropriations  for  the  navy,  or  on  the  occasion 
of  some  foreign  difficulty,  he  again  and  again 
has  tried  to  bring  about  a  fatal  transfer  of  power. 
It  was  on  the  18lh  of  August,  1859,  when  he 
disclosed  his  views  more  fully  and  emphatically 
than  ever  before.  The  President,  in  a  special 
message,  asked  for  special  authority  to  protect 
American  citizens  on  the  Transit  route.  Then 
Mr.  Douglas  expressed  himself  as  follows  : 

“I  think  the  President  ought  to  have  the  power  to  re¬ 
dress  sudden  injuries  upon  our  citizens,  or  outrages  upon 
our  flag  without  waiting  for  the  action  of  Congress.  The 
Executive  of  every  other  nation  on  earth  has  that  authori¬ 
ty,  under  their  respective  forms  of  government.  *  *  *  * 
I  go  further,  Sir.  I  would  entrust  the  Executive  with  the 
authority,  when  an  outrage  is  perpetrated  upon  our  ships 
ami  commerce,  to  punish  it  instantly,  when  he  thinks  the 
interest  and  the  honor  of  the  nation  require  prompt  action. 

I  wou  d  make  this  principle  general  in  its  application.  I 
desire  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  have  as  much 
authority  to  protect  American  citizens  and  the  American 
flag  abroad  as  the  Executive  of  every  other  civilized  na¬ 
tion  on  earth  possesses.  *  *  *  *  I  was  willing  to  adopt 
the  principle  that  this  authority  shall  be  vested  in  the 
President  of  the  United  States  as  a  rightful  authority  and 
a  permanent  rule  of  action,  applicable  all  over  the  world 
whenever  he  thinks  American  interests  and  American 
honor  require  it  to  be  exerted.  *  *  *  *  When  it  is 
known  that  our  Executive  has  the  same  authority  outside 
of  the  United  States  that  the  British  Premier  and  the 
French  Kmperor ,  or  the  head  of  any  other  nation  pos¬ 
sesses,  you  will  And  there  will  be  a  less  number  of  out¬ 
rages,”  &c. 

If  Mr.  Douglas  had  brought  forward  proposi¬ 
tions  like  this  in  the  heat  of  debate,  aroused  by 
warlike  excitement,  we  might  excuse  him  on  the 
plea  that  his  temper  ran  away  with  his  judgment. 
But  the  frequent,  deliberate,  persistent  reitera¬ 
tion  of  his  views,  must  urge  the  conviction  upon 
us  that  they  have  become  with  him  a  settled  po¬ 
litical  doctrine.  Did  he  ever  consider  the  extent 
and  consequences  of  the  change  he  demands ! 


Does  he  know  what  it  means,  that  the  President 
shall  have  the  power,  without  waiting  for  the  ac¬ 
tion  of  Congress,  to  use  the  army  and  navy  when 
he — not  when  Congress,  but  when  he  thinks  the 
interests  of  the  country  require  it  1  Suppose  the 
President  be  a  man  of  excitable  temper — of  more 
valor  than  discretion — or  a  man  of  inordinate 
ambition — or  a  wily  politician,  unscrupulous 
enough  to  involve  the  country  in  war  in  order  to 
divert  popular  attention  from  home  difficulties. 
Suppose  such  a  President  has  the  power  to  use 
the  armed  forces  of  the  United  States  when  he 
thinks  fit.  Will  not  our  peace  and  security  be 
entirely  at  the  mercy  of  his  temper,  his  ambition, 
or  his  unscrupulousness! 

This  is  not  so  dangerous,  says  Mr  Douglas,  for 
“  not  every  belligerent  act  leads  to  war."  No, 
certainly  not;  but  if  there  is  anything  in  the 
world  apt  to  lead  to  war  it  is  a  belligerent  act. 
It  is  true,  according  to  Mr.  Douglas’s  bill,  the 
President  will  have  to  report  to  Congress  “  at  the 
“  earliest  practicable  moment but  will  not  the 
President  be  able,  by  an  indirect  use  of  the  army 
or  navy,  to  involve  the  country  in  war,  to  array 
nation  against  nation,  long  before  that  “earliest 
“practicable  moment”  arrives  !  It  is  true  Con¬ 
gress  will,  after  a  while,  have  power  to  stop  the 
war ;  but  are  you  not  aware  that  ours  is  a  Gov¬ 
ernment  which  depends  not  always  on  a  calm 
public  opinion,  but  sometimes  also  on  the  pas¬ 
sions  of  the  people  !  If  once,  by  the  measures 
of  the  President,  we  are  in  active  hostilities — if 
once  the  intoxicating  music  of  artillery  has  start¬ 
ed  the  warlike  enthusiasm  of  the  people — if  once 
the  fighting  spirit  of  the  masses  is  aroused  by  the 
sight  of  blood,  will  not  then  what  was  com¬ 
menced  against  the  judgment  of  the  people  be 
pushed  by  their  passions  ! 

Mr.  Douglas  urged  his  proposition  as  often  as 
there  was  a  speck  of  war  in  the  horizon.  But 
those  difficulties  with  Great  Britain  and  the  Cen¬ 
tral  American  Republics,  for  the  prosecution 
of  which  he  demanded  that  the  Executive  be 
invested  with  power  to  adopt  warlike  measures, 
have  been  settled  by  diplomatic  transactions. 
Our  peaceful  relations  with  foreign  Governments 
were  hardly  disturbed.  Net  a  drop  of  blood  was 
shed.  The  honor  of  the  Republic  remains  intact, 
the  Constitution  inviolate.  Suppose  Mr.  Douglas’ 
notions  had  prevailed,  and  he  had  been  Presi¬ 
dent  of  the  United  States,  clothed  with  the  dis¬ 
cretionary  power  he  demanded.  I  ask  you  most 
seriously,  and  invite  you  to  ponder  the  question, 
what  would  have  been  the  result  then  ?  How 
many  outrages,  real  or  imaginary,  would  he  have 
punished  with  the  army  or  navy,  “  without  wait¬ 
ing  for  the  action  of  Congress  ?”  How  often 
would  he,  unrestrained  by  Congress,  have  deemed 
instant  redress  necessary  ?  Into  how  many  fol¬ 
lies  would  his  childish  hatred  of  Great  Britain 
have  betrayed  him  ?  Into  how  many  wars  would 
his  sensation  policy  have  involved  us  within  these 
last  few  years  ?  With  the  blood  of  your  sons 
you  would  have  paid  the  price  of  his  indiscre¬ 
tions.  Let  the  President  have  the  power  that 
Mr.  Douglas  demands  for  him,  and  the  question 
of  peace  or  war,  of  prosperity  or  desolation,  will 
depend  upon  the  temper  of  a  single  individual. 
Put  Mr.  Douglas  in  the  Presidential  chair,  and 
give  him,  as  he  demands,  the  power  of  the  French 
Emperor,  and  he  will  furnish  not  the  prudence, 
but  certainly  the  arbitrariness. 

But  he  contends  that  our  Executive  must  have 
the  power,  because  the  Executive  of  every  other 


8 


nation  has  it.  Indeed !  Does  lie  not  know  that 
just  there  is  the  difference  between  our  system 
of  Government  and  those  of  other  countries  ? 
Did  it  never  occur  to  him  that  the  establishment 
o/  imperial  power  in  this  Republic  would  require 
the  entire  overthrow  of  our  checks  and  balances? 
Does  he  not  know  that  even  in  the  hands  of  a 
British  Premier,  this  power  is  less  formidable 
than  it  would  be  in  the  hands  of  a  President, 
since  the  British  Premier  is  subject  to  the  imme¬ 
diate  control  of  a  parliamentary  majority,  and 
liable  to  be  voted  down  and  dismissed  at  any 
moment,  which  the  President  and  his  Secretary 
of  State  are  not  ?  Oh,  “  greatest  of  living  states¬ 
men!”  if  thou  dost  not  know  that,  every  sweet 
little  school-boy  can  tell  thee.  But  there  you 
see  him,  “  in  the  fullness  of  his  ignorance  of  this 
“  vast  subject,  in  the  maturity  of  his  incapacity 
“  to  apprehend  its  merits,”  as  Lord  Brougham 
would  style  it,  attempting  to  trample  down  the 
constitutional  safeguards  which  surround  the 
liberties,  and  the  security  of  the  nation.  Such 
ignorance  is  dangerous  when  coupled  with  such 
pretensions.  Let  that  “greatest  of  living  states¬ 
men  ”  study  awhile  the  peculiar  features  which 
distinguish  the  republican  government  of  Amer¬ 
ica  from  the  monarchical  governments  of  the  old 
world.  Give  him  an  opportunity  to  learn  that 
an  American  President  or  Secretary  of  State  was 
never  intended  to-be  a  British  Premier  or  a  French 
Emperor.  Let  him  learn  to  appreciate  that  sys¬ 
tem  of  nice  balances  of  power  in  our  Constitu¬ 
tion,  which  is  the  principal  safeguard  of  our  free¬ 
dom  and  security.  But  don’t  speak  of  placing 
him,  such  as  he  is,  in  the  office  of  highest  re¬ 
sponsibility.  If  you  want  a  safe  man  to  admin¬ 
ister  your  laws,  select  him  among  those  who 
understand  their  spirit,  not  one  who  means  to 
cushion  his  Presidential  chair  with  imperial 
powers,  and  who  would  take  delight  in  playing 
like  a  reckless  boy  with  the  club  of  Hercules. 

It  is  my  suspicion  that  Mr.  Douglas  tried  to 
effect  that  centralization  of  power  in  the  hands 
of  the  President,  expecting  to  be  President  him¬ 
self,  and  that  then  he  would  use  it  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  plunging  the  country  into  warlike  enter¬ 
prises,  to  result  in  the  conquering  of  Cuba  and  a 
part  of  Mexico,  which  policy  of  conquest  would 
relieve  him  of  the  difficulties  in  which  his  posi¬ 
tion  upon  the  Slavery  question  has  involved  him. 
I  give  this  as  my  suspicion.  You  may  judge  for 
yourselves  whether  it  is  supported  by  any  mate¬ 
rial  evidence  growing  out  of  his  past  career  and 
present  situation.  But  the  measure  he  urged  and 
advocated  is  so  dangerous  and  detestable  in  it¬ 
self,  that  no  ulterior  design  can  make  it  more 
damnable.  It  certainly  is  one  of  the  acts  dicta¬ 
ted  by  the  evident  desire  to  retrieve  the  lost  fa¬ 
vor  of  the  Slavery  propagandists  by  outdoing 
them  in  everything  not  immediately  connected 
with  the  Territorial  question.  This  may  be  con¬ 
sidered  a  grave  charge,  and  I  will  substantiate  it 
at  once,  for  in  these  t  imes  Judge  Douglas’s  states¬ 
manship  shines  with  more  than  ordinary  lustre. 

John  Brown  had  made  his  insurrectionary  at¬ 
tempt  in  Virginia.  The  Republicans  openly  dis¬ 
approved  of  the  act,  and  denounced  him  in  good 
faith,  as  they  would  disapprove  and  denounce 
every  interference  with  the  laws  and  institutions 
of  other  States,  as  a  violation  of  the  spirit  of  our 
institutions,  which  furnish  for  every  evil  a  lawful 
remedy.  But  the  South  was  excited,  and  Doug*- 
las  saw  a  chance  for  himself.  He  pounced  upon 
it  with  almost  indecent  eagerness,  morbidly  anx¬ 


ious  to  anticipate  the  action  of  the  Committee  on 
the  Harper’s  Ferry  affair,  which  was  expected  to 
offer  propositions  applicable  to  the  case.  On  the 
22d  of  January,  1860,  he  introduced  the  follow¬ 
ing  resolution  into  the  Senate: 

Ilesolvcd,  That  the  Committee  on  the  Judiciary  be  in¬ 
structed  to  report  a  bill  for  ihe  protection  of  each  State  and 
Territory  in  the  Union  against  invasion  by  the  authorities, 
or  inhabitants  of  any  other  State  or  Territory,  and  lor  the 
suppression  ami  punishment  of  conspiracies  or  combina¬ 
tions  in  any  State  or  Territory  with  intent  to  invade,  as¬ 
sail  or  molest  the  government,  property  or  institutions  of 
any  other  State  or  Territory  of  the  Union. 

The  true  intent  and  meaning  of  this  resolution, 
was  made  plain  by  the  speech  with  which  the 
J udge  accompanied  it.  After  having  endeavored 
to  show  that  the  Constitution  confers  upon  our 
Federal  Government  the  power  to  do  what  the 
resolution  contemplates,  he  then  defines  his  ob¬ 
ject  as  follows : 

“  Sir,  I  hold  that  it  is  not  only  necessary  to  use  the 
military  power  when  the  actual  case  of  invasion  shall 
occur,  but  to  authorize  the  judicial  department  of  the 
Government  to  suppress  all  conspiracies  and  combina¬ 
tions  in  the  several  States  with  intent  to  invade  a 
.  State,  or  molest  or  disturb  its  government,  its  peace, 
its  citizens,  its  property,  or  its  institutions.  You  must 
suppress  the  conspiracy ,  the  combination  to  do  the  act,  and 
then  you  will  suppress  it  in  advance.  *  *  I  demand 

that  the  Constitution  be  executed  in  good  faith,  so  as 
to  punish  and  suppress  every  combination,  either  to 
invade  a  State,  or  to  molest  its  inhabitants,  or  to  dis¬ 
turb  its  property,  or  to  subvert  its  institutions  and  its 
government.  I  believe  this  can  be  effectually  done  by 
authorizing  the  United  States  Courts  in  the  several 
States  to  take  jurisdiction  of  the  offense,  and  punish 
the  violation  of  the  law  with  appropriate  punish¬ 
ments.” 

So  much  about  the  way  in  which  the  combi¬ 
nations  can  be  and  ought  to  be  suppressed  and 
punished.  Now  what  are  and  where  are  the 
combinations  ? 

“  Sir,”  said  the  Judge,  “  what  were  the  causes  which 
produced  the  Harper’s  Ferry  outrage  ?  Without  stop¬ 
ping  to  adduce  the  evidence  in  detail,  I  have  no  hesi¬ 
tancy  in  expressing  my  firm  and  deliberate  conviction 
that  the  Harper’s  Ferry  crime  was  the  natural,  logical 
and  inevitable  result  of  the  doctrines  and  teachings  of 
the  Republican  party,  as  explained  and  enforced  in 
their  platform,  their  partisan  presses,  their  pamphlets 
and  books,  and  especially  in  the  speeches  of  their 
leaders  in  and  out  of  Congress.  *  *  *  The  great 
principle  that  underlies  the  Republican  party,  is  vio¬ 
lent,  irreconcilable,  eternal  warfare  upon  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  American  Slavery,  with  a  view  to  its  ultimate 
extinction  throughout  the  land.” 

This  language  is  plain.  There  is  the  danger¬ 
ous  combination  with  intent  to  carry  on  a  vio¬ 
lent  warfare  against  the  institutions  of  other 
States.  Now,  let  us  see  what  the  Judge  is  going 
to  do  with  the  unfortunate  combination  to 
which,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  most  of  us  belong. 

“Sir,”  says  the  Judge,  “give  us  such  a  law  as  the 
Constitution  contemplates  and  authorizes  and  I  will 
show  the  Senator  from  New  York  ttuit  there  is  a  con¬ 
stitutional  mode  of  repressing  the  irrepressible  con¬ 
flict.  I  will  open  the  prison-door,  and  allow  the  conspi¬ 
rators  against  the  peace  of  the  Republic  and  the  do¬ 
mestic  tranquillity  of  other  States  to  select  their  cells, 
wherein  to  drag  out  a  miserable  life  as  a  punishment 
for  their  crimes  against  the  peace  of  society.” 

But  in  order  to  remove  all  doubt  as  to  what 
the  conspiracy  and  combination  is,  he  proceeds  : 

“  Can  any  man  say  to  us  that,  although  this  outrage 
has  been  perpetrated  at  Harper’s  Ferry,  tbere  is  no 
danger  of  its  recurrence  ?  Sir,  is  not  the  Republican 
party  still  embodied  organized,  confident  of  success 
and  defiant  in  its  pretensions  ?  Does  it  not  now  hold 
and  proclaim  the  same  creed  as  before  the  invasion  ? 
Those  doctrines  remain  the  same.  Those  teachings 
are  being  poured  into  the  minds  of  men  throughout 
the  country  by  means  of  speeches,  and  pamphlets  and 
books,  and  through  partisan  presses.  The  causes  that 
produced  the  Harpers  Ferry  invasion  are  now  in  active 
operation.  *  *  Mr.  President,  the  mode  of  preserv¬ 
ing  peace  is  plain.  This  system  of  sectional  warfare 


9 


must  cease.  The  Constitution  has  given  the  power ; 
and  all  we  ask  of  Congress  is  to  give  the  means,  and 
we,  by  indictments  and  convictions  in  the  Federal 
Courts  of  the  several  States,  will  make  such  examples 
of  the  leaders  of  such  conspiracies  as  will  strike  terror 
into  the  hearts  of  others ;  and  there  will  he  an  end 
of  this  crusade.  Sir  we  must  check  it  by  crushing 
out  the  conspiracy  and  combination;  and  then  there 
can  be  safety.” 

I  confess,  when  I  read  that  speech,  and  the  reso¬ 
lution  in  defense  of  which  it  was  made,  I  stood 
horror-struck — not  as  though  1  had  feared  that  a 
Congress  could  be  found  so  degenerate  as  to  pass 
such  a  law,  but  because  a  Senator  Acid  been  found 
who  had  the  effrontery  to  advocate  it  in  the  open 
halls  of  an  American  Legislature.  This  is  not  a 
mere  figure  of  speech.  I  do  not  exaggerate.  Only 
look  at  it.  A  treasonable  attempt  has  been  com¬ 
mitted.  The  offenders  ave  punished.  Mr.  Douglas 
introduces  a  proposition  for  a  law  intended  to  pre¬ 
vent  a  repetition  of  the  attempt,  lie  pretends  to 
discover  the  origin  of  the  treasonable  attempt  in 
the  opinions  and  doctrines  of  a  great  national 
party.  He  charges  that  party  with  urging  a  sec¬ 
tional  warfare  and  crusade  against  the  institutions 
of  some  of  the  States,  and  declares  that  this  cru¬ 
sade  is  carried  on  by  speeches,  pamphlets,  books, 
and  partisan  presses — by  ideas  being  poured  into 
the  minds  of  the  people.  He  declares  that  there 
can  be  no  peace  as  long  as  those  causes  which 
produced  the  treasonable  attempt  remain  in  active 
operation.  He  proposes  to  check  this  crusade 
by  crushing  out  the  conspiracies  and  combina¬ 
tions  by  which  it  is  carried  on;  and  the  means 
by  which  he  intends  to  crush  them  out  are 
indictments  and  convictions  in  the  Federal 
Courts,  making  such  examples  of  the  leaders  as 
will  strike  terror  into  the  hearts  of  others.  He 
proposes  to  open  prison  cells  for  them,  wherein 
to  drag  out  a  miserable  life.  This  is  the  proposi¬ 
tion  submitted  to  the  Senate  of  the  American 
Republic — not  by  the  King  of  Naples,  not  by  the- 
Vizier  of  the  Turkish  Sultan,  not  by  Lhe  Chief  of 
Police  of  the  Russian  Czar,  not  by  one  of  the 
Terrorists  of  the  French  Revolution — but  by 
an  American  Senator,  on  the  23d  of  July’  1860. 

I  will  not  stoop  to  defend  the  Republican  party 
against  these  accusations.  They  are  of  so  ridi¬ 
culous,  so  preposterous  a  nature,  as  not  to  call 
for  the  serious  notice  of  any  candid  man.  But 
no  matter.  Let  us  embody  the  intent  and  mean¬ 
ing  of  Mr.  Douglas’s  resolution  and  speech  in 
the  shape  of  a  law.  It  will  probably  read  as 
follows : 

“Srctiox  1.  Be  it  enacted ,  fyc ,  That  if  any  person  or 
persons,  residing  in  any  State  or  Territory,  shall  unlawfully 
combine  or  conspire  together,  with  intent  to  invade,  assail 
or  molest  the  Government,  inhabitants,  property,  >  r  insti¬ 
tutions,  of  any  other  State  or  Territory,  or  if  any  person  or 
persons  with  intent,  as  aforesaid,  shall  counsel,  advise,  or 
attempt  to  procure  any  riot,  invasion,  unlawful  assembly, 
or  co  ubination,  whether  such  conspiracy,  threatening, 
counsel,  advice,  or  attempt,  shall  have  the  proposed  effect 
or  not,  he  or  they  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  high  misde¬ 
meanor  and  upon  conviction  before  any  Court  of  the  Uni¬ 
ted  States,  having  jurisdiction  thereof,  shall  be  punished 

by  a  fine  not  exceeding  - dollars,  or  by  imprisonment 

during  a  term  not  loss  than - years,  nor  exceeding - 

years;  and  further,  at  the  discretion  of  the  Court,  may  be 
bolden  to  find  security  for  his  good  behavior,  in  such  sum, 
and  for  such  time,  as  the  Court  may  direct.” 

This  section  would  cover  the  conspiracies  and 
combinations  themselves.  But  Douglas  says  that 
such  treasonable  things  will  be  repeated  as  long 
as  the  causes  from  which  they  spring  remain  in 
active  operation.  He,  therefore,  wants  to  crush 
out  the  causes ;  which  may  be  done  by  section 
second  : 

“Skc.  2.  And  be  it  further  enacted,  That  if  any  person, 

2 


inhabitant  of  any  one  State  or  Territory,  shall  wi  :te,  print, 
utter,  or  publish  or  shall  cause  or  procure  to  be  written, 
printed  or  uttered,  or  published,  or  shall  knowingly  or 
willingly  authorize  or  aid  in  writing,  printing,  uttering,  or 
publishing  any  scandalous  or  malicious  writing  or  wri¬ 
tings  against  the  Government,  inhabitants,  laws,  or  insti¬ 
tutions  of  other  Stales  or  Territories,  with  intent  to  defame 
the  said  Government,  inhabitants,  laws,  or  institutions,  or 
to  excite  against  them  the  hatred  of  the  good  p  ople  of 
any  of  the  States,  or  to  excite  any  unlawful  combinations 
for  invading,  assailing,  or  molesting  the  Government,  in¬ 
habitants,  property,  or  institutions,  of  other  States  or  Ter¬ 
ritories,  being  thereof  convicted  before  any  Court  of  the 
United  States  having  jurisdiction  thereof,  lie  shall  he  pun- 
ishe  i  by  a  fine  not  exceeding - dollars,  and  by  impris¬ 
onment  not  exceeding - years.” 

Every  candid  person  will  at  once  admit  that 
these  two  sections,  as  I  have  drawn  them,  contain 
nothing — not  a  single  point,  not  a  single  expres¬ 
sion,  that  is  not  expressly  and  directly  suggested 
by  Mr.  Douglas’s  resolution  and  speech.  It  so 
happens  that  a  law  like  this  is  not  without  prece¬ 
dent  in  the  history  of  this  Republic.  It  is  not 
quite  unknown  to  our  own  statute  book,  for  the 
two  sections  I  laid  before  you  are  embodied  with 
scrupulous  accuracy.  Mr.  Douglas’s  propositions 
are  the  literal  copy  of  the  notorious  Sedition  Law 
of  1.798.  I  only  put  in  “Governments,  inhabit- 
“  ants,  property,  or  institutions  of  other  States 
“  and  Territories,”  instead  of  “  Government  of 
“  the  United  States  or  either  House  of  Congress.” 
The  rest  is  exactly  alike;  no,  let  me  not  slander 
the  Sedition  Law.  The  terms  of  imprisonment 
prescribed  by  the  Sedition  Law  are  moderate,  not 
exceeding  two  and  five  years  respectively,  while 
Mr.  Douglas  insists  upon  his  victims  “dragging 
out  in  their  prison  cells  their  miserable  lives,” 
of  which  ten  years  would  evidently  not  be  suffi¬ 
cient.  Then  this  Sedition  Law  was  enacted  only 
for  a  very  limited  period,  after  which  it  was  tc 
expire,  while  Mr.  Douglas  intends  the  Conspiracy 
Act  to  be  a  permanent  institution  of  the  country. 
These  two  features  make  the  Sedition  Law  emi¬ 
nently  liberal  in  comparison  with  Douglas’s  Con 
spiracy  Bill. 

There  may  be  some  old  man  among  us  wlic 
remembers  the  time  when  the  Sedition  law  was 
enacted — lie  will  tell  you  that  the  same  act  which 
was  intended  to  prevent  insurrection,  led  peoph 
upon  the  very,  brink  of  an  insurrection;  he  will 
tell  you  that  patriots,  horrified  at  that  time  foi 
the  liberties  of  the  people,  thought  of  the  neces¬ 
sity  of  a  second  revolution.  The  excitement  of 
those  days  has  left  its  monument  in  the  history 
of  this  country* — that  monument  is  the  Kentucky 
and  Virginia  resolutions,  drawn  by  Jefferson  and 
Madison.  These  resolutions  were  the  loud  out¬ 
cry  of  patriotic  hearts  against  the  first  flagrant 
attempt  at  the  centralization  of  Governmental 
power.  The  Democratic  party  has  indorsed  them 
again.  It  claims  Jefferson  as  its  father.  What 
would  Jefferson,  the  author  of  the  Kentucky  res¬ 
olutions,  say  of  his  degenerate  offspring  who 
have  nominated  a  man  for  the  Presidency  who 
attempts  to  repeat  the  most  tyrannical  and  out¬ 
rageous  act  of  the  Federalists  in  the  same  outra¬ 
geous  form  ?  Would  he  not  tell  them  that  they 
must  be  mistaken  in  their  ancestry  ? 

Let  me  show  the-  consequence  of  the  measure, 
and  you  will  understand  why  its  forerunner  cre¬ 
ated  such  serious  alarm  and  apprehension.  So 
tar  our  political  parties  have  been  fighting  with 
arguments.  The  victors  obtained  possession  of 
the  constitutional  power,  ami  administered  the 
Government,  lmt  had  no  power  to  violate  the 
rights  and  liberties  of  those  that  were  defeated. 
However  the  contest  of  parties  may  have  ended, 


/ 


10 


the  peace  of  the  country  was  never  materially 
disturbed,  for  the  vanquished  knew  that  their 
individual  security  was  not  impaired.  Such  was 
the  uniform  result  of  the  fight  with  arguments. 
But  let  the  political  parties  once  begin  to  fight  with 
indictments — put  into  their  hands  the  two-edged 
weapon  of  persecution,  and  whatever  delusion 
you  may  indulge  in,  the  liberties  of  the  people 
will  be  no  more  secure  in  America  than  they  are 
in  Austria  and  Naples. 

There  is  one  kind  of  despotism  more  terrible 
than  that  of  kings — that  is  the  despotism  of 
political  parties.  Their  tendency  is  not  only  to 
defeat  but  to  oppress  their  opponents.  However 
pure  their  first  intentions  may  be,  they  will,  in 
the  heat  of  political  contest,  insensibly  drift  into 
that  irresistible  current.  There  is  but  one  way 
to  prevent  this :  it  is  that  the  means  of  oppres¬ 
sion  and  persecution  be  carefully  kept  Out  of 
their  reach  by  strictly  limiting  and  circumscrib¬ 
ing  the  powers  of  the  Government.  Do  not  say 
that  these  dangerous  tendencies  may  be  averted 
by  a  change  of  parties.  It  is  oppression  that 
engenders  an  oppressive  spirit ;  upon  persecution 
follows  revolution  and  revenge — that  is,  new  per¬ 
secution,  and  so  on.  You  may  know  where  it 
begaj,  but  not  where  it  will  end.  The  framers 
of  our  Constitution  understood  that  well;  they 
defined  the  crimes  of  which  the  Federal  Courts 
shall  have  jurisdiction  with  scrupulous  nicety. 
They  laid  down  the  doctrine  that  treason  against 
the  Government  shall  consist  in  levying  war 
against  the  United  States,  not  in  giving  aid  and 
comfort  to  their  enemies,  and  nothing  else  ;  and 
that  no  person  shall  be  convicted  of  treason 
unless  upon  the  testimony  of  two  witnesses,  not 
to  the  “  combination  with  treasonable  intent,” 
but  to  the  overt  act ,  thus  carefully  guarding 
against  the  idea  of  constructive  treason.  They 
knew  well  that  the  usual  rules  of  legal  construc¬ 
tion  in  regard  to  common  crimes  should  not  be 
applied  to  political  matters  in  which  conscience 
and  the  freedom  of  opinion  is  involved,  because 
justice  in  one  might  become  oppression  and 
tyranny  in  the  other  case.  But  even  these  con¬ 
stitutional  safeguards  appeared  so  insufficient  to 
the  people  cf  those  days,  that  in  the  amendments 
to  the  Constitution  they  surrounded  the  funda¬ 
mental  rights  and  liberties  of  the  citizen  with  a 
new  bulwark  of  emphatic  declaration.  Hence 
this  fierce,  indignant  uncompromising  opposition 
to  every  measure  tending  to  give  latitude  to  the 
power  of  the  Government  over  individual  rights 

Judge  Douglas  seems  to  have  no  conception 
of  the  groundwork  upon  which  the  safety  of 
popular  liberty  rests.  Let  him  not  pretend  to 
say  that  he  intended  the  law  for  the  prevention 
of  political  offenses,  for  he  ought  to  know,  as 
every  well-informed  man  know's,  that  of  all  the 
laws  in  the  world  which  fasten  the  chains  of 
despotism  upon  mankind,  there  is  hardly  one 
which  does  not  rest  upon  the  pretext  that  political 
offenses  must  be  prevented.  Prevention  of  mis¬ 
chief  was  the  snare  with  which  people  in  all 
ages  and  all  countries  have  been  prevented  from 
asserting  their  liberties.  Preventive  laws  are  the 
poison  with  which  freedom  is  killed.  It  is  said 
that,  years  ago,  an  American  citizen  met  Prince 
Metternich  in  the  city  of  Brussels.  You  remem¬ 
ber  who  Prince  Metternich  was.  The  history  of 
the  world  hardly  knows  the  minister  who  had  to 
answer  for  more  tears  and  curses  of  crushed 
nations.  The  American  showed  him  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States,  and  asked  his  opin¬ 


ion  of  it.  “  This  Constitution,”  said  the  Prince, 
“and  I  can  govern  the  Empire  of  Austria  with 
it.”  “  What  is  that  V ’  asked  the  American  with 
astonishment.  “It  is  the  power  of  the  central 
government  to  pass  preventive  laws.”  What  a 
pity  Prince  Metternich  is  dead.  In  Judge  Doug¬ 
las  he  would  have  found  the  man  of  his  heart. 
Put  the  Judge’s  Conspiracy  Bill  upon  our  statute 
book,  and  declare  it  Constitutional,  and  the  de¬ 
ficiency  is  supplied.  Prince  Metternich  is  willing 
to  govern  Austria,  after  his  fashion,  with  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  Place  the 
power  to  indict  and  punish  for  combinations  and 
for  criminal  intent  in  political  matters  into  the 
hands  of  our  Federal  Judges,  those  petty  pro- 
consuls  who  feel  big  when  they  can  show  their 
power,  and  w^e  shall  soon  have  a  little  Star  Cham¬ 
ber  in  every  little  judicial  district,  a  little  Fou- 
quier  Tinville  to  act  as  prosecuting  attorney,  and 
a  little  Jeffries  to  pass  the  sentences  of  the  court, 
there  will  be  a  government  spy  to  smell  out 
treasonable  combinations  wherever  three  or  four 
of  them  are  assembled,  and  the  cells  of  your 
prisons  filled  with  men  who  have  the  spirit  to 
think  and  speak  about  Slavery  as  Washington, 
Jefferson,  Madison  and  Franklin  thought  and 
spoke. 

And  there  are  those  who  dare  to  call  the  man 
who  proposed  to  inaugurate  such  a  system  of 
policy,  a  “great  statesman.”  To  the  honor  of 
Southern  men  be  it  said  in  both  cases,  when  he 
proposed  to  confer  'the  war-making  power  upon 
the  President,  as  when  he  introduced  the  New 
Sedition  Law,  he  had  the  mortification  of  being 
put  down  by  a  slaveholder.  It  was  in  both  cases 
Jefferson  Davis,  the  leader  of  the  Fire-eaters, 
who  had  the  patriotic  spirit  to  vindicate  our  Re¬ 
publican  institutions  against  the  disgusting 
schemes  of  Northern  demagogues. 

But  a  Northern  man  also  was  listening  with 
indignant  astonishment  to  Douglas’s  speech  in 
favor  of  the  New  Sedition  Law ;  that  was  the 
brave  John  Hickman,  of  Pennsylvania,  the  Anti- 
Lecompton  Democrat,  who  believed  what  he 
said.  And  when  he  left  the  Senate  Chamber  he 
broke  out  in  the  words  :  “  On  thy  belly  shalt 

thou  go,  and  dust  shalt  thou  eat  all  the  days  of 
thy  life.” 

And  well  might  he  say  so,  for  the  proposition 
whispered  into  the  ears  of  the  fairest  of  our  kind 
by  the  serpent  of  Paradise  was  hardly  more  infa¬ 
mous  and  infernal  than  the  proposition  Douglas 
whispered  in  the  ears  of  the  present  generation. 

Where  did  Mr.  Douglas  learn  these  doctrines  ? 
He  has  been  in  Europe.  Unable  to  comprehend 
the  means  by  which  liberty  is  to  be  preserved  in 
this  countiy,  he  seems  to  have  studied  the  means 
by  which  people  are  enslaved  there.  Not  in 
England,  but  in  France  and  Russia,  he  found 
much  to  admire.  ( I  don’t  know  whether  he 
visited  Austria  and  Naples.)  He  basked  in  the 
sunshine  of  the  smiles  of  the  Czar,  Nicholas. 
The  smiles  of  a  despot  sank  deeply  into  his  heart, 
and  this  conspiracy  bill  grew  out  of  it. 

And  this  is  your  “greatest  of  living  statesmen.” 
If  this  is  the  ruling  statesmanship  of  our  days, 
then  good  night,  dearly-bought  liberties !  good 
night,  bright  American  Republic !  good  night, 
great  beacon  of  struggling  humanity!  If  it  is 
statesmanship  to  subvert  the  principles  of  the 
Constitution,  undermine  the  liberties  of  the  peo¬ 
ple,  to  place  the  security  of  the  individual  at 
the  mercy  of  the  centralized  Government,  then, 
indeed,  he  is  one  of  the  greatest,  and  his  statue 


11 


deserves  to  be  erected  side  by  side  with  that  of 
the  illustrious  Cataline  of  Rome,  and  the  patri¬ 
otic  Strafford  of  England.  I  do  not  fear  that  the 
man  who  made  the  infamous  attempt  will  be 
elevated  to  the  highest  trust  in  this  Republic,  for 
a  just  fate  has  already  irrevocably  decreed  against 
him  ;  but  I  do  fear  that  there  may  be  thousands 
of  men  who  will  not  have  spirit  enough  to  stig¬ 
matize  him  with  their  repudiation.  I  appeal 
to  you.  American  freemen.  Your  hearts  cannot 
harbor  the  sincere  feeling  of  gratitude  for  the 
heroes  and  sages  who  gave  liberty  to  this  land, 
if  you  do  not  harbor  a  curse  for '  the  man 
who  attempts  to  destroy  it  with  his  insidious 
schemes.. 

Let  me  proceed  :  It  would  seem  that  the  policy 
of  a  man  who  introduces  and  advocates  such 
measures,  must  spring  either  from  the  profound- 
est  ignorance  of  the  principles  upon  which  the 
liberty  of  men  is  maintained,  or  an  innate  love  of 
the  principles  b}f  which  the  liberty  of  men  is 
subverted.  It  will,  therefore,  surprise  you  a 
little  when  I  tell  you  that  Douglas’s  system  of 
policy  rests  upon  the  basis  of  a  profound  philo¬ 
sophical  doctrine  concerning  the  only  safe  foun¬ 
dation  upon  which  human  liberty  rests.  It  has 
always  struck  me  as  very  remarkable  and  it  may 
have  occurred  to  a  great  many  of  you,  that  Mr. 
Douglas’s  mind,  with  all  its  acuteness  and  fer¬ 
tility  and  resources,  is  exceedingly  barren  in 
original  conception.  All  the  speeches  he  has 
delivered  since  1854  carry  the  peculiar  flavor  of 
staleness  about  them.  They  contain  nothing  but 
6ome  stereotyped  and  somewhat  commonplace 
ideas,  played  in  a  sonorous,  mellow  swell  of  lan¬ 
guage  which  derives  its  principal  charm  from  the 
animal  vigor  and  energy  with  which  it  is  puffed 
out. 

And  here  permit  me  to  say,  by  the  way,  that 
in  my  humble  judgment  I  consider  him  one  of 
the  most  over-estimated  men  in  the  country. 
But  his  speeches  do  contain  one  original  idea, 
and  I  tell  you  that  is  a  bright  one  ;  it  belongs  all 
to  him;  nobody  ever  advocated  it  before,  and 
nobody  will  hereafter.  We  have  been  laboring 
under  the  impression  that  Douglas  did  not  care 
whether  Slavery  be  voted  up  or  down;  but  we 
must  beg  his  pardon — it  turns  out  that  he  does 
care  ;  for  the  only  original  idea  he  can  boast  of 
is  that  Slavery  must  necessarily  exist  for  the 
sake  of — variety.  [Laughter.]  Don’t  laugh,  1 
pray  you — it  is  a  very  serious  matter — it  is  the 
fundamental  principle  upon  which  Mr.  Douglas’s 
whole  statesmanship  rests;  and  as  he  is  the 
greatest  statesman  alive,  it  certainly  deserves  a 
serious  consideration.  He  tells  us  that  it  is  the 
very  issue  upon  which  he  conducted  the  canvass 
in  Illinois  in  1858 — it  is  the  very  ground  upon 
which  he  placed  the  necessity  of  his  Conspiracy 
bill,  and  he  has  peddled  it  all  over  the  Union  in 
numberless  speeches. 

The  original  idea,  as  expressed  in  his  own  lan¬ 
guage,  is  simply  this:  “I  assert,”  said  he,  in  his 
speech  opening  the  canvass  of  1858,  “  that 
“  the  great  fundamental  system  which  un- 
“  derlies  our  complex  system  of  State  and  Fede- 
“  ral  Governments,  which  implies  diversity  and 
“dissimilarity  in  local  institutions  and  domestic 
“  affairs  of  each  and  every  State  then  in  the  Un- 
“ion,  or  thereafter  to  be  admitted.  I  therefore 
“  conceive  that  Mr.  Lincoln  has  totally  misappre- 
“  hended  the  great  principles  upon  which  our 
“Government  rests.  Uniformity  in  local  and 
**  domestic  affairs  would  be  destructive  of  States’ 


“  rights,  of  States’  sovereignty — of  personal  lib- 
“  erty  and  personal  freedom.  Wherever  the  doc- 
“  trine  of  uniformity  is  proclaimed  ;  that  all  the 
“  States  must  he  free  or  slave  ;  that  all  the  labor 
“  must  be  white  or  black  ;  that  all  the  citizens  of 
“  the  different  States  must  have  the  same  privi- 
“  leges,  or  must  be  ruled  by  the  same  regulations; 
“  you  have  destroyed  the  greatest  safeguards 
“  which  our  institutions  have  thrown  around,  the 
“  rights  of  the  citizen.  From  this  view  of  the 
“  case  I  am  driven  irresistibly  to  the  conclusion 
“  that  diversity,  dissimilarity,  variety  in  all  our 
“  local  and  domestic  institutions  is  the  great  safe¬ 
guard  of  our  liberties.  *  *  I  repeat,  that 
“  uniformity  in  our  institutions  is  neither  possi- 
“  ble  nor  desirable.” 

This  may  sound  very  profound,  but  it  will  not 
require  many  words  to  show  you  how  exceed¬ 
ingly  ridiculous  it  is.  Whatever  your  opinions 
of  the  Judge’s  statesmanship  may  be,  permit  me 
to  say  that  whenever  he  attempts  to  act  the  phi¬ 
losopher,  he  becomes. — not  to  put  too  fine  a  point 
upon  it — very  funny. 

His  argument  is,  that  there  is  a  variety  of  in¬ 
terests  or  domestic  affairs  in  the  country  ;  that  a 
variety  of  local  institutions  grows  out  of  them  ; 
that  upon  this  variety  of  institutions  our  federal 
system  of  Government  rests  ;  that  the  federal 
system  of  Government  is  the  great  safeguard  of 
our  liberties;  that  consequently  in  order  to  pre¬ 
serve  our  liberties  it  is  necessary  to  preserve  a 
variety  of'domcstic  affairs  and  local  institutions. 
The  question  arises,  if  that  variety  of  domestic 
affairs  and  local  institutions  did  not  exist,  would 
that  render  the  federal  system  of  government 
impossible!  In  other  words,  would  a  people, 
among  whom  there  is  no  such  variety  of  domes¬ 
tic  affairs  and  local  institutions,  be  incapable  of 
freedom  ! 

The  original  States  entered  into  a  union  as 
separate  organizations  —  whether  distinct  and 
separate  on  the  ground  of  a  variety  of  interests, 
or  for  any  other  reason,  is  needless  to  discuss, 
for  if  their  institutions  and  interests  had  been 
ever  so  uniform,  it  is  evident  that  they  could  and 
would  not  have  consolidated.  But  a  conclusive 
refutation  of  the  Judge’s  theory  lies  nearer.  The 
people  of  Ohio,  Indiana,  Illinois,  Michigan  and 
Wisconsin,  are  nearly  all  depending  upon  the 
same  resources — these  States  are  all  essentially 
agricultural,  and,  besides,  have  some  shipping 
interest  upon  the  great  lakes.  Their  domestic 
affairs  and  local  institutions  are  essentially  the 
same.  Their  system  of  labor  is  the  same — neither 
of  them  holds  slaves.  The  uniformity  of  Free 
Labor  was  introduced  there  by  the  Ordinance  in 
’87.  According  to  the  Judge’s  theory,  they  must 
consolidate  if  there  is  among  them  no  variety  of 
domestic  affairs  and  local  institutions  which  keep 
them  asunder.  It  might  be  said  that  they  cannot 
consolidate  now  on  account  of  constitutional 
obstacles.  Granted,  for  argument’s  sake.  But 
that  vast  extent  of  land  was  consolidated  once  in 
one  great  solid  mass,  called  the  North-Western 
Territory.  Why  did  it  not  remain  consolidated  ? 
Why  was  it  cut  up  into  different  Territories  and 
States,  since  their  domestic  interests  were  the 
same,  their  local  institutions  the  same,  their  sys¬ 
tem  of  labor  the  same?  There  was  complete 
uniformity,  and  yet  the  very  opposite  of  consoli¬ 
dation.  All  these  things  remain  essentially  the 
same.  And  do  they  desire  to  consolidate  ?  And 
is  it  necessary  to  make  half  of  them  Slave  States 
in  order  to  keep  them  asunder  ?  It  is  prepos- 


12 


terous.  But  tliis  example  shows  that  not  Mr. 
Lincoln  hut  Judge  Douglas  must  have  entirely 
misconceived  the  source  from  which  our  political 
institutions  spring. 

That  source  is  nothing  else  but  the  instinct  of 
self-government  animating  our  people.  Why  do 
we  cut  up  our  States  into  counties  and  town¬ 
ships — even  its  States  in  which  the  interests  and 
domestic  affairs  of  the  people  are  everywhere  quite 
uniform?  For  the  simple  reason  that  the  instinct 
of  self-government  demands  that  all  the  functions 
of  sovereignty  which  the  people  can  exercise  by 
direct  action  should  remain  in  the  hands  of  the 
people  ;  and  that  all  political  power  which  can¬ 
not  be  exercised  by  that  direct  action  should  be 
so  organized  as  to  remain  as  near  the  original 
source  of  sovereignty  as  possible.  This  renders 
necessary  such  divisions  and  local  organizations 
as  will  place  the  direct  administration  of  the 
nearest  home  affairs  immediately  into  the  hands 
of  the  people.  The  affairs  a  little  more  remote 
in  general  are  intrusted  to  the  State  Govern¬ 
ments,  subject  to  the  immediate  control  of  the 
people ;  while  the  affairs  of  interests  still  more 
remote  in  general  are  put  into  the  hands  of  the 
Federal  Government.  This  ramification,  division, 
and  subdivision  of  political  power  is  carried  out 
no  less  where  there  is  a  uniformity  of  domestic 
affairs  and  local  institutions,  than  where  there 
exists  variety.  It  will  remain  such  just  as  long 
as  the  people  insist  upon  administering  these 
affairs  by  as  direct  an  exercise  of  sovereignty  as 
possible,  and  no  longer.  To  pretend  that  this 
ramification  of  political  power  into  a  complex 
gradation  of  functions  cannot  exist  without  there 
being  a  variety  of  interests  and  domestic  institu¬ 
tions,  would  be  to  say  that  the  people  among 
whom  there  is  no  such  variety  cannot  be  free ; 
and  that  is  a  nonsense  which  the  merest  school¬ 
boy  would  be  ashamed  of. 

But  suppose,  for  argument  sake,  a  variety  of 
interests  were  really  so  great  and  indispensable  a 
prop  and  pillar  of  our  institutions  of  self-govern¬ 
ment — is  Judge  Douglas  unacquainted  with  the 
difference  between  manufacturing  Massachusetts 
and  Connecticut  and  commercial  New  York — be¬ 
tween  mining  Pennsylvania  and  agricultural  Illi¬ 
nois  ?  But  that  variety  does  not  seem  to  be  suf¬ 
ficient  for  the  Judge — there  is  still  too  much 
uniformity  in  it.  He  insists  that  “  where  the 
t:  doctrine  of  uniformity  is  proclaimed  all  the 
“  States  must  be  free  or  slave — that  all  labor 
“  must  be  white  or  black.”  Our  liberties  must 
necessarily  go  by  the  board,  therefore  we  must 
have  more  variety.  The  variety  of  manufactur¬ 
ing  and  commercial-,  mining  and  agricultural 
products,  is  sadly  insufficient.  He  insists  that 
there  must  be  a  little  variety  of  Freedom  and 
Slavery,  of  white  and  black  labor ;  and  that 
seems  to  be  his  favorite  mixture ;  his  cardinal 
fundamental,  sine  qua  wow  variety  ;  and  not  only 
have  we  no  right  to  establish  uniform  Free  Labor 
by  encroaching  upon  the  rights  of  the  States,  but 
quite  as  a  general  thing,  the  extinction  of  his 
favorite  variety ,  “  would  be  neither  possible  nor 
“  desirable.”  He  declares  it  to  be  “  a  fatal  heresy 
“  to  proclaim  that  there  can  or  ought  to  be  uni- 
“  formity  among  the  different  States  of  this 
11  Union.”  It  would,  then,  according  to  the  Judge, 
not  be  desirable  that  Free  Labor  should  prevail 
everywhere,  for  that  would  create  uniformity, 
and  uniformity  is  the  death  of  Freedom. 

And  now  mark  that  wonderful  muddle  of  non¬ 
sense  in  the  head  of  that  “  greatest  of  living 


“statesmen” — our  liberties  rest  upon  our  Fede¬ 
ral  system  of  Government ;  our  Federal  system 
of  Government  rests  upon  the  variety  of  institu¬ 
tions;  that  variety  of  institutions  consists  of 
there  being  Slavery  in  some  of  the  Stales.  If 
Slavery  disappeared,  that  variety  would  disap¬ 
pear  ;  if  that  variety  disappeared,  our  Federal 
system  of  Government  would  disappear;  if  our 
Federal  system  of  Government  disappeared,  the 
safeguards  of  our  liberties  would  be  destroyed — 
consequently,  if  Slavery  disappears  liberty  dis¬ 
appears  also. 

Again,  if  all  the  States  were  free  there  would 
be  uniformity ;  but  uniformity  in  local  and  do¬ 
mestic  affairs  would  be  destructive  of  personal 
liberty — that  uniformity  is  prevented  by  the  ex¬ 
istence  of  Slavery,  consequently  the  existence  of 
Slavery  prevents  the  destruction  of  liberty ;  or 
liberty  cannot  be  preserved  but  by  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  Slavery. 

What  benefactors  of  our  humanity  were  those 
who  introduced  Slavery  into  our  land  1  for  they 
furnished  the  material  out  of  which  the  neces¬ 
sary  variety  was  made,  without  which  our  liberty 
cannot  exist.  If  they  had  not  done  so,  then  all 
the  States  would  be  free ;  there  would  be  uni¬ 
formity,  and  we  would  all  be  slaves  !  What  non¬ 
sense  to  abolish  the  slave  trade !  The  more 
slaves,  the  more  variety — the  more  variety,  the 
more  freedom. 

How  we  must  pity  the  unfortunate  nations  that 
have  no  Slavery  among  them  ;  for  they  have  no 
variety  of  institutions,  and  having  no  variety 
of  institutions,  they  can  have  no  liberty.  Poor 
people  that  have  no  slaves  among  them ;  they 
can  never  be  free ! 

It  is  a  little  surprising,  however,  that  this  great 
and  luminous  doctrine  of  “  variety  ”  should  have 
been  so  little  known  about  the  time  when  our 
Government  was  organized  and  the  Constitution 
framed.  There  were  two  individuals  living  then 
who  enjoyed  some  little  reputation  for  statesman¬ 
ship,  one  of  whom  said  :  “I  trust  we  shall  have 
a  Confederacy  of  Free  States ;”  and  the  other 
said:  “  Nothing  is  more  certainly  written  in  the 
Book  of  Fate  than  that  those  people  [meaning 
the  slaves]  are  to  be  free.”  And  they  were 
called  statesmen  !  What  an  immense  progress 
we  have  made  in  these  seventy  years !  They 
would  be  called  simpletons  or  traitors  now  ;  for 
they  either  knew  nothing  of  the  great  doctrine 
of  i(  variety” — which  was  very  foolish — or,  if 
they  knew  it,  they  plotted  the  destruction  of 
popular  freedom  by  advocating  uniformity — 
which  certainly  was  very  treasonable.  By  the 
way,  the  name  of  one  was  George  Washington, 
and  the  name  of  the  other,  Thomas  Jefferson. 
You  will  be  obliged  to  confess  that  you  were 
very  much  mistaken  in  those  two  men.  What  a 
pity  Judge  Douglas  did  not  live  in  those  days. 
IIow  he  would  have  knocked  his  great  doctrine 
of  variety  about  their  ears !  How  lie  would 
have  taught  Washington  what  the  definition  of 
our  Federal  system  is  !  How  he  would  have 
told  Jefferson  what  the  great  safeguards  of 
liberty  are  ! 

But,  alas!  such  statesmen  are  sometimes  born 
not  only  out  of  season,  but  also  out  of  place. 
What  a  pity  Judge  Douglas  does  not  live  in  Switz¬ 
erland,  the  oldest  Republic  now  extant.  Those 
benighted  people,  the  Swiss,  have  been  for  cen¬ 
turies  indulging  in  the  foolish  delusion  that  tl  ey 
were  free,  and  that  they  had  a  federal  system  of 
Government.  Why  there  is  no  Slavery  in  Switz- 


13 


erland — there  is  not  the  necessary  variety  of  in¬ 
stitutions  there.  Their  States  are  all  Free  States. 
There  is  uniformity  there.  How  can  they  have 
federal  institutions  with  uniformity  I  How  can 
there  be  liberty  without  variety  1  Impossible. 
Poor,  innocent  souls !  they  think  they  are  free, 
and  have  no  slaves.  Let  the  Judge  go  at  once 
on  a  missionary  expedition  to  liberate  the  Swiss. 
He  will  have  an  opportunity  to  try  that  other 
great  original  idea  of  his,  that  “  any  political 
n  creed  must  be  radically  wrong  which  cannot  be 
“proclaimed  everywhere.”  I  venture  to  predict 
that  every  honest  Swiss  boot  will  lift  itself  and 
kick  the  great  variety  Douglas  respectfully  from 
Alp  to  Alp. 

Now  look  at  the  strange  consequences  into 
which  his  variety  doctrine  inevitably  leads  him. 
The  necessity  of  preserving  Slavery  for  the  sake 
of  Liberty — that  is,  of  preserving  the  variety  of 
institutions — was  the  principal  ground  upon 
which  he  placed  the  necessity  of  passing  his  Con¬ 
spiracy  bill.  The  same  man  who  tells  us  that 
Slavery  must  be  preserved  because  its  extinction 
would  bVing  about  uniformity,  which,  in  its  turn, 
■would  produce  a  consolidated  despotic  Govern¬ 
ment — the  same  man  advocates  the  passage  of  a 
measure  investing  the  Government  with  powers 
which  put  it  upon  the  courses  of  consolidation  ; 
for,  without  the  grant  of  these  powers,  without 
that  act  of  consolidation,  Slavery  cannot  be  main¬ 
tained.  Slavery,  according  to  him,  must  be  pre¬ 
served  by  a  measure  which  is  necessary  to  popu¬ 
lar  liberty;  for,  if  Slavery  is  not  preserved,  uni¬ 
formity  will  ensue,  and  the  liberties  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  will  be  in  danger.  In  other  words,  he  tells  us 
that  the  existence  of  Slavery  is  necessary  for  the 
preservation  of  our  rights  and  liberties,  and  then 
he  tells  us  that  a  measure  undermining  our  rights 
and  liberties  is  necessary  for  the  preservation  of 
Slavery.  The  variety  must  be  kept  up  for  the 
purpose  of  maintaining  our  liberties,  and  our  lib¬ 
erties  must  be  put  down  for  the  purpose  of  keep¬ 
ing  the  variety. 

We  are,  indeed,  greatly  indebted  to  Judge 
Douglas.  At  last  we  know  what  Slavery  is  good 
for,  and  why  its  extinction  is  neither  possible  nor 
desirable.  Even  the  black  man,  in  his  suiferings, 
will  find  a  soothing  consolation  in  the  Judge’s 
philosophy.  When  Sambo  is  flogged  down  South, 
and  the  whip  lacerates  his  back,  the  benevolent 
Judge  will  tell  the  poor  fellow  that  he  has  got  to 
be  whipped  for  the  sake  of  variety  [laughter] ; 
and  Sambo  will  smile  in  the  sweet  consciousness 
of  being  whipped  for  a  very  great  principle. 
[Renewed  laughter.]  And  when  the  Judge’s  bill 
lias  passed,  he  has  opened  for  you  the  prison  cells 
wherein  he  blandly  invites  you  “  to  drag  out  your 
miserable  lives,”  you  will  with  pride  remeipber 
the  old  Roman  proverb,  “  Dulce  et  decorum  est 
“ patria  mori ;  ”  and  improving  upon  the  text 
you  will  exclaim,  “  It  is  most  sweet  and  honor¬ 
able  to  die  for  variety’s  sake.” 

This,  then,  is  Judge  Douglas’s  philosophy  of 
government ;  not  an  idea  occasionally  dropped 
in  a  speech,  but  his  great  original  conception. 
This  shallow,  ridiculous,  childish  nonsense,  is 
what  he  emphatically  proclaims  to  be  the  funda¬ 
mental  doctrine  of  his  whole  political  wisdom ! 
Oh,  Douglas  Democrats,  how  proud  you  must 
feel  of  your  “  greatest  statesman  alive.”  Permit 
me  to  offer  you.  in  the  name  of  the  Republican 
party,  our  sincerest  congratulations. 

Gentlemen:  You  have  accompanied  my  re¬ 
marks  with  some  evidence  of  merriment;  and, 


indeed,  it  cannot  be  denied  that  there  is  some  of 
the  profundity  of  the  illustrious  Dogberry  in  Mr. 
Douglas’s  philosophical  doctrines.  But  this  is  a 
serious  matter.  Do  you  not  see  that  to  some 
extent  the  honor  of  the  country  is  involved  in  ill 
That  gentleman  stands  before  us  a  candidate  for 
the  Presidency,  arid  he  is  represented  to  be  the 
“  greatest  American  statesman.”  And  now,  I 
entreat  you,  I  implore  you  solemnly — for  there 
is  no  man  here  who  has  the  reputation  of  this 
country  more  deeply  at  heart  than  I  have — I  im¬ 
plore  you,  do  not  make  this  Republic  ridiculous 
in  the  eyes  of  the  whole  world  by  attempting  to 
crown  that  Dogberry  statesman  with  the  highest 
honors  .of  the  Republic.  I  am  not  jesting  ;  I  am 
in  deep  and  solemn  earnest;  for  if  you  look  over 
the  list  of  those  men  who,  since  the  organization 
of  the  Republic,  have  been  deemed  worthy  of  a 
vote  for  the  Presidency,  you  will  find  not  one 
among  them  who  has  laid  more  insiduous 
schemes  to  subvert  the  principles  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  who  did  more  to  debauch  the  consciences 
of  the  people,  more  to  bring  American  statesman¬ 
ship  into  contempt  than  he.  No,  I  will  not  wrong 
Judge  Douglas;  there  was  one;  I  mean  Aaron 
'Burr.  He  was  a  more  dangerous  man,  for  he 
united  to  a  depraved  heart  a  far  superior  under¬ 
standing. 

But,  as  to  Judge  Douglas,  here  I  stand  up  before 
the  great  jury  of  the  sovereign  people  and  bring 
my  bill  of  indictment. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  changed  his  posi¬ 
tion  in  regard  to  the  Missouri  restriction,  time 
and  again,  according  to  the  interests  of  Slavery. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  broken  the  plighted 
faith  of  the  people  by  the  repeal  of  the  Comprom¬ 
ise  of  1820. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  upheld  the  most 
atrocious  violations  of  the  ballot-box  ;  for  having 
trampled  upon  the  most  sacred  rights  of  the  peo¬ 
ple  of  Kansas,  so  long  as  the  struggle  between 
Freedom  and  Slavery  was  doubtful. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  committed  a  fraud 
upon  the  people  by  forging  and  adulterating  the 
principle  of  Popular  Sovereignty,  and  making  it 
the  machine  of  Slavey  propagandism. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  deserted  the  cause  of 
Free  Kansas  when  the  people,  having  complied 
with  all  reasonable  conditions,  applied  for  admis¬ 
sion  into  the  Union. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  repeatedly  made  the 
attempt  to  disturb  the  system  of  constitutional 
checks  and  balances,  by  placing  the  war-making 
power  in  the  hands  of  the  President. 

I  arraign  him  for  having  attempted,  by  his 
conspiracies,  a  thing  more  outrageous  than  the 
Sedition  Law  of  1798,  to  put  the  liberties  of 
speech  and  press  at.  the  mercy  of  a  political  in¬ 
quisition,  and  to  make  the  judicial  persecution 
of  opinions  a  standard  system  of  policy. 

I  arraign  hrrn,  lastly,  for  having  attempted  to 
pass  off  upon  the  people  the  doctrines  of  political 
philosophy,  which  is  an  insult  to  the  popular 
understanding.  No,  I  beg  your  pardon,  1  do 
not  arraign  him  for  that,  for  this  is  a  free 
country,  where  everybody  has  a  right  to  make 
himself  as  ridiculous  as  he  pleases,  “subject  only 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.”  [Loud 
laughter.]  And,  yet,  I  arraign  him  for  that  also, 
for  I  protest  that  he  has  no  right  to  make  the 
Republic  ridiculous  with  him. 

Here  is  the  charge.  It  is  for  the  people  to  give 
the  verdict. 

Gentlemen,  will  you  have  patience  enough  to 


f 


14 


listen  to  a  few  remarks  about  Douglas,  “  the^re- 
sidential  candidate  V ’  Well,  after  these  exploits 
he  thought  he  was  fit  to  he  a  Democratic  candi¬ 
date  for  the  Presidency,  and  so  his  name  went 
before  the  Charleston  Convention.  But,  won¬ 
derful  to  tell,  the  whole  Southern  Democracy 
seemed  to  be  united  against  him  ;  and  I  honestly 
declare  I  think  the  Slave  Power  did  wrong.  It 
might  have  found  a  more  abject  and  less  exact¬ 
ing  tool,  but  it  could  hardly  expect  to  find  a 
more  daring,  reckless  and  unscrupulous  one. 
What  was  the  reason  of  their  opposition  %  Was 
it  the  Constitutional  quibbles  about  which  they 
had  been  contending  1  The  whole  difference  was 
merely  imaginary.  Was  it  the  slaveholders 
thought  a  man  who  had  betrayed  his  own  section 
of  the  country  could  not  be  relied  upon  in  his 
promises  to  be  faithful  to  another  ?  That  was 
more  honorable  than  judicious  in  the  Slave 
Power,  governed  by  such  a  feeling.  No,  I  think 
the  true  reason  widely  differs  from  this,  and  it 
show's  that  Mr.  Douglas  never  had  the  sagacity 
enough  to  understand  his  owrn  position.  The  Slave 
Power  will  sometimes,  for  expediency’s  sake, 
condescend  to  make  a  Northern  man  President, 
if  he  consents  to  be  its  unconditional  tool,  but  it# 
will  never  elevate  one  who  aspires  to  be  or  be¬ 
come  a  leader  of  the  party.  Mr.  Douglas  ought 
to  have  understood  that.  There  was  his  mistake. 
However  willing  he  may  have  been  to  serve  them, 
he  had  to  serve  them  not  in  his,  but  in  their  own 
way.  He  affected  independence,  and  he  fell.  I 
think  the  South  acted  against  their  own  interest, 
for  in  Judge  Douglas  they  would  have  had  a  man 
in  the  Presidential  chair  who  would  have  shrunk 
from  nothing  to  regain  their  favor.  It  is  my 
conviction  that  he  would  have  been  a  more  ultra 
Pro-slavery  President  than  Breckinridge,  or  Jef¬ 
ferson  Davis,  or  Slidell,  and  1  wish  they  would 
still  conclude  to  take  him,  so  as  to  place  every 
man  in  his  proper  position.  You  see  wre  are  not 
afraid  of  your  combinations. 

But  the  mistake  was  committed.  They  op¬ 
posed  him  to  the  last,  and  Judge  Douglas  saw 
that  his  nomination  in  Charleston  was  an  impos¬ 
sibility.  Then  his  friends  moved  an  adjourn¬ 
ment  of  the  Convention,  and  carried  it.  They 
were  to  re-assemble  at  Baltimore  a  few  weeks 
afterward.  In  the  meantime,  Mr.  Douglas  saw 
a  last  chance  of  appeasing  the  South.  He 
grasped  at  it  with  desperate  eagerness,  and  he 
saw  the  great  prize  slipping  from  his  hands,  and 
he  staked  his  all  upon  a  last  cast.  On  the  15th 
and  16th  of  May,  he  arose  in  the  Senate,  and  in 
one  of  the  most  elaborate  efforts  of  his  life,  he 
made  the  following  statement,  and  Douglas  De¬ 
mocrats  I  claim  your  special  attention.  Listen  : 

“  It  is  part  of  the  history  of  that  country  that 
under  this  doctrine  of  non-intervention — this 
doctrine  that  you  delight  to  call  Squatter  Sove¬ 
reignty — the  people  of  Now  Mexico  have  intro¬ 
duced  and.  protected  Slavery  in  the  whole  of  that 
Territory,  under  the  doctrine  they  have  converted 
a  tract  of  Free  Territory  into  Slave  Territory 
move  than  five  times  the  size  of  the  State  of  New 
York.  Under  this  doctrine  Slavery  has  been  ex¬ 
tended  not  only  up  to  36°  30',  but  up  to  38°, 
giving  you  a  degree  and  a  half  more  of  slave 
Territory  than  you  ever  claimed.  *  *  *  What¬ 
ever  inch  of  Free  Territory  lias  been  converted 
into  Slave  Territory  on  the  American  continent 
since  the  Revolution,  except  in  New  Mexico  and 
Virginia,  under  the  principle  of  non-intervention 
affirmed  at  Charleston  1  If  it  be  true  that  this 


principle  of  non-intervention  has  protected  Sla¬ 
very  in  that  comparatively  Northern  and  cold 
region,  where  you  did  not  expect  it  to  go,  cannot 
you  trust  the  same  principle  further  South, 
when  you  come  to  acquire  additional  Territory 
from  Mexico  1  Will  not  the  same  principle  pro¬ 
tect  in  the  Northern  States  of  Mexico  when  they 
are  acquired,  since  they  are  now  surrounded  by 
Slave  Territory  I  ” 

Oh,  Douglas  men,  what  a  lesson  is  this!  Did 
you  not  tell  us  that  when  the  Nebraska  bill  was 
enacted,  that  this  law  was  the  most  efficient  way 
of  introducing  Free  Labor  into  the  Territories  I 
Have  you  not  most  solemnly  assured  us  every 
day  since  1854  that  the  principle  of  Popular 
Sovereignty  as  expounded  by  Mr.  Douglas  would 
most  certainly  save  all  the  Territories  from  the 
grasp  of  Slavery  I  And  now  look  there!  Your 
own  master  and  prophet  admits,  acknowledges , 
and  boasts  of  it — that  this  same  principle  gave 
to  Slavery  one  and  one-half  degrees  of  latitude 
more  than  it  ever  claimed,  and  that  since  the 
organization  of  the  American  Republic  not  a 
square  foot  of  Free  Territory  was  ever  converted 
into  Slave  Territory,  but  by  the  same  measure 
which  you  represented  to  us  as  the  greatest  and 
most  reliable  engine  of  Free  Labor !  Your  own 
master  and  prophet  tells  you  in  your  own  faces, 
and  in  the  face  of  all  mankind,  and  in  the  face 
of  posterity,  that  you  have  been  lying  most  a'ro- 
ciously — lying  every  day  for  the  last  six  years. 
This  was  unkind — was  it  not,  Douglasites  of  the 
North  ? 

No  ;  I  am  not  joking.  It  was  terribly  unkind. 
All  he  said  was  most  certainly,  most  undoubt¬ 
edly,  most  uncontrovertibly  true ;  but  I  de¬ 
clare  that  if  he  had  the  least  regard  for  the  feel¬ 
ings  of  his  friends — the  least  sympathy  for  them 
in  their  awkward  embarrassments — he,  he  ought 
to  have  been  the  last  on  earth  to  make  that  state¬ 
ment.  Did  he  know  that  you  had  supported  him 
and  made  friends  for  him  on  the  false  pretence 
that  liis  great  principle  worked  the  exclusion  of 
Slavery  from  the  Territories  ?  Did  he  not  know 
that  you  had  pledged  your  honor — had  staked 
your  character  for  truth  and  veracity  upon  that 
pretence  ?  He  knew  it  well.  He  had  encouraged 
you  in  doing  so  ;  and,  after  you  have  compro¬ 
mised  yourself  for  him,  day  after  day,  in  the  eyes 
of  the  whole  world,  he  turns  and  gives  you  most 
unceremoniously  the  lie.  Oh,  that  was  ungene¬ 
rous  !  It  was  mean — very  mean — unspeakably 
mean.  If  your  self-sacrificing  friendship  had 
awakened  the  least  echo  in  his  heart,  he  ought  to 
have  been  the  last  man  to  do  so.  But  that  heart 
seems  to  be  so  filled  with  calloused  selfishness — 
so  destitute  of  the  generous  impulses  of  human 
nature — that  if  liis  friends,  like  Broderick,  die 
for  him,  he  coldly  disowns  him  ;  and  if  they  lie 
for  him,  he  promptly  puts  them  to  shame.  Dis¬ 
owns  them  and  puts  them  to  shame.  And  for 
what?  For  the  purpose  of  retrieving  the  lost 
favors  of  the  South  ;  regaining  the  lost  smiles  of 
the  Slave  Power,  to  be  sacrificed  to  them.  Was 
that  the  reward  you  had  deserved  at  his  hands  ? 

Look  at  it  again.  See,  he  stands  before  the 
slaveholders  in  the  Senate  of  the  United  States 
busy  bargaining  away  your  honor  for  their  favors. 
“  Who  has  ever  served  you  more  faithfully  than 
“  I  with  my  great  principle  ?”  he  asks  them. 
“Why  not  let  my  friends  in  the  North  preach  up 
“  that  principle  as  the  Pioneer  of  Freedom  ?  The 
“  fools,  perhaps,  believing  in  what  they  say,  but 
“  we  know  better.  Do  you  not  see  the  result  ? 


15 


“  Why  not  permit  me  the  innocent  joke  of  bam- 
“  boozling  the  people  of  the  North  into  believing 
‘‘that  lam  the  great  Champion  of  Freedom?” 
Ah,  Douglas  men,  what  a  sight  is  this  !  He  has 
prostituted  you,  and  now  proclaims  your  dis¬ 
grace.  How  do  you  like  the  attitude  in  which 
he  has  placed  you  ?  How  do  you  like  the  pillory 
to  which,  with  his  own  hand,  he  has  nailed  your 
ears  ?  And  you  are  willing  to  stand  there — stand 
there  quietly  in  the  eyes  of  mankind.  Do  you 
not  sometimes  hear  an  earnest  voice  speaking 
within  you,  speaking  of  a  self-respect  and  the 
natural  dignity  of  man  ?  Does  it  never  tell  you 
that  the  fairest  blush  of  shame  would  be  an  orna¬ 
ment  to  your  cheeks  ?  My  friends,  I  love  to 
esteem  all  that  bears  the  attributes  of  human 
nature  ;  but  if  sometimes,  at  an  unguarded  mo¬ 
ment,  a  cloud  of  contempt  arises  in  my  soul,  it 
is  at  the  aspect  of  this  gratuitous  self-degrada¬ 
tion,  for  which  even  ignorance  and  error  can 
hardly  serve  as  an  excuse. 

See  there  your  master  and  prophet,  prostrating 
himself  before  the  Slave  Power — in  the  dust,  be¬ 
fore  your  proud  opponents!  You  can  no  longer 
say  you  stand  by  him,  for  since  that  day  he  does 
not  stand  up  himself.  If  you  are  with  him  still 
there,  at  the  foot  of  the  Slave  Power,  where  he 
lies,  you  lie  with  him.  And  what  did  the  Slave¬ 
holders  do  after  he  had  so  meanly  humiliated 
himself,  and  prostrated  his  friends  1  Did  they 
smile  upon  him  7  Aye,  they  did,  with  scorn, 
and  said,  “We  loved  thy  treason  well  enough, 
“  but  we  spurn  with  contempt  the  traitor and 
there  he  lies  still. 

The  time  of  the  Baltimore  Convention  arrived, 
and  the  struggle  recommenced.  It  became  at 
once  manifest  that  Douglas’s  nomination  could 
not  be  forced  upon  the  Democratic  party  without 
splitting  that  organization  in  twain  ;  and  he  saw 
clearly  enough  that  then  his  election  would  be 
an  impossibility.  The  South  was  seceding  en 
masse ,  and  leaving  the  rump  Convention  to  do  as 
it  pleased.  Then  Mr.  Douglas,  seeing  a  disgrace¬ 
ful  defeat  inevitable,  wrote  a  letter  to  his  friends 
in  the  Convention,  requesting  them  to  withdraw 
his  name  if  they  found  it  in  any  way  consistent 
to  do  so.  And  I  declare,  if  Douglas  was  ever 
honest  in  anything  he  did  or  said,  I  believe  be 
was  honest  then  and  there. 

But  now  the  moment  had  arrived  when  it  be¬ 
came  manifest  that  there  is  justice  in  history. 
Douglas’s  position  was  disgusting,  but  his  pun¬ 
ishment  was  sublime.  Then  his  friends,  for  the 
first  time,  refused  to  obey  his  command.  Those 
whom  he  had  used  so  often  and  so  long  for  his 
own  advancement  saw  now  there  was  a  last 
chance  of  using  him  for  theirs.  They  said  to  him 
“We  have  performed  our  part  of  the  contract ; 
“  now  you  have  to  perform  yours.  We  have  nom- 
“  inated  you  for  the  Presidency;  now  you  have 
“  to  permit  us  to  be  elected  Congressmen,  Sher- 
“  iffs,  County  Clerks,  or  Constables,  on  the 
“  strength  of  your  name.  There  is  no  backing 
“  out.  Ho !  for  the  spoils  !” 

.“Dost  thou  think  because  thou  hast  suddenly  become 
virtuous, 

There  shall  be  no  more  cakes  and  ale  ? 

Yes,  by  Saint  Ann !  an’  ginger-hot  in  the  mouth,  too !” 

[Prolonged  laughter.] 

And  so  the  saddle  of  the  rump  nomination  is 
put  upon  his  back,  and  the  whole  ghastly  pack 
of  office-hunters  jump  upon  it.  The  spurs  are 
put  to  the  flanks — the  whip  applied  to  the  back 
of  the  panting,  bleeding  jade,  and  so  the  spectral 


ride  goes,  east  and  west,  night  and  day — and 
may  the  steed  go  to  perdition,  if  only  the  riders 
reach  their  goal.  [Loud  applause  and  cheers.] 

Oh,  there  is  justice  in  history.  He  has  at  last 
the  idol  of  his  dreams — the  object  of  his  fondest 
wishes — for  which  he  has  laid  so  many  a  treach¬ 
erous  scheme — for  which  he  has  turned  so  many 
a  summersault — for  which  he  has  struck  so  many 
a  blow  at  the  peace  of  the  Republic — for  which 
he  so  often  prostituted  himself  and  his  followers 
— for  which  he  has  hugged  so  many  a  loafer,  and 
insulted  so  many  an  honest  man — for  which  he 
made  every  rum-shop  his  headquarters,  and  every 
ruffian  his  friend  : — he  has  at  last  the  nomination 
for  the  Presidency  ;  but  what  he  has  craved  as  a 
blessing,  has  come  down  upon  him  as  a  curse. 
To  be  nominated,  and  know  that  an  election  is 
impossible  !  To  be  voted  for,  and  to  know  that 
every  vote  for  him  is  for  Breckinridge  or  Lane, 
whom  he  hates,  and  every  vote ‘against  him  a  vote 
for  Lincoln,  whom  he  does  not  love !  To  be  voted 
for,  and  be  aware  that  those  who  vote  for  him 
work  not  for  him,  but  for  themselves !  To  be  dead, 
and  yet  living  enough  to  be  conscious  of  death  ! 
Oh,  there  is  justice  in  history  !  Am  I  exaggera¬ 
ting  ?  Where  is  that  mighty  leader,  whose  voice 
once  called  millions  into  the  field  7  At  the  street 
corners  and  cross-roads  you  see  him  standing  like 
a  blind,  downfallen  Belisarius — not  in  virtue,  but 
in  poverty — a  bevy  of  political  harlots  surround¬ 
ing  him,  and  begging  for  the  miserable  obolus  of 
a  vote;  begging  the  Know-Nothings,  whom  he 
once  affected  to  despise ;  begging  the  Whigs, 
whom  he  once  insulted  with  his  brawling  denun¬ 
ciations  ;  invoking  the  spirit  of  Henry  Clay,  whom 
he  once  called  a  black-hearted  traitor!  Oh,  but 
poor  Belisarius  !  The  party  harlots  that  surround 
him  with  their  clamorous,  begging  cry,  steal  eve¬ 
ry  vote  they  receive  for  him,  and  put  it  into  their 
own  pockets. 

Where  is  the  bold,  powerful  agitator,  whose 
voice  sounded  so  defiantly  on  every  contested 
field  7  Behold  him  on  his  sentimental  journey, 
vainly  trying  to  find  his  mother’s  home  and  his 
father’s  grave,  apologising  with  squeamish  affec¬ 
tation  for  his  uncalled-for  and  indecent  appear¬ 
ance  in  public,  like  one  of  the  condemned  spirits 
you  read  of  in  the  myths  of  by-gone  ages,  rest¬ 
lessly  perambulating  the  world,  condemned  to  a 
more  terrible  punishment  than  Tantalus,  who 
was  tortured  by  an  unearthly  thirst,  with  grapes 
and  water  within  his  reach — more  terrible  than 
that  of  Dannites,  who  had  to  pour  water  into 
the  leaky  cask — for  he  is  condemned  to  deliver 
that  old  speech  of  his  over  and  over  again. 
[Applause  and  cheers  find  laughter.]  As  often 
as  he  arrives  at  a  hotel  that  has  a  balcony,  as 
often  as  his  hasty  journey  is  arrested  by  a  spon¬ 
taneous  gathering,  when  you  hear  a  subterranean 
spectral  voice  cry  out  “  my  great  principle  of 
non-intervention” — that  is  the  dead  squatter 
sovereign  atoning  for  the  evil  deeds  he  commit¬ 
ted  in  his  bodily  existence.  [Prolonged  laughter 
and  cheers.]  Not  long  ago  he  haunted  the  rail¬ 
road  crossings  and  clam-bakes  of  New  England; 
then  the  cross-roads  of  the  South,  and  the  ghastly 
apparition  was  last  seen  in  this  neighborhood. 
[Prolonged  laughter  and  cheers.]  Where  is  that 
formidable  party  tyrant  whose  wishes  once  were 
commands ;  who  broke  down  sacred  compromises 
with  a  mere  stroke  of  his  finger ;  whose  very  nod 
made  the  heads  of  those  who  displeased  him  fly 
into  the  basket;  whose  very  whims  were  tests  of 
Domooracy  7  Where  is  he  who  once,  like  Mae- 


v 


16 


beth,  thought  himself  invulnerable  by  any  man 
“who  was  of  woman  born;”  invincible,  great, 

- “  Till  Birnarn  wood 

Do  hie  to  Dunsinane  hill. 

Should  come  against  him.” 

Like  Macbeth,  lie  has  believed  the  fiends 
“That  paltered  with  him  in  a  double  sense,” 
and  there  he  stands,  tied  to  the  stake  of  his  . 
nomination. 

“  He  cannot  fly, 

And,  bear  like,  he  must  fight  his  course.” 

But  as  Birnatn  Wood  marched  to  Dunsinane, 
so  the  very  fence  rails  of  Illinois  are  rushing 
down  upon  him  [tremendous  laughter  and 
cheers],  and,  like  Macduff,  there  rises  against 
the  spirit  of  Free  Labor,  one  whose  children  he 
has  murdered,  and  that  is  a  Champion  “not  of 
woman  born.”  [Laughter.]  And  now 

“  On,  Macduff ; 

And  damned  be  he  who  first  cries  hold — enough.” 
[Renewed  laughter,  and  cheers.]  Oh,  there  is 
justice  in  history.  [.Cheers.] 

The  same  betrayal  of  the  Free  Labor  cause — 
the  Nebraska  bill,  which  was  to  be  his  stepping 
stone  to  power,  proved  to  be  the  abyss  which 
engulfed  his  honor,  his  manhood,  his  strength 
and  his  hopes.  There  are  those  who  mean  to  re-  i 
verse  tlie  judgment  of  history.  Vain  under¬ 
taking!  That  man  is  marked  by  the  hand  of 
eternal  retribution.  On  his  very  front  stands  the 
fatal  touch.  Do  not  attempt  to  arrest  the  hand 
of  Supreme  Justice.  You  cannot  save  him  from 
his  ruin.  Why  are  you  so  eager  to  share  his 
disgrace'?  Leaders  of  the  Douglas  Democracy, 
what  means  your  empty  bravado  of  strength  1 
You  cannot  deceive  others  ;  why  are  you  work¬ 
ing  so  hard  to  deceive  yourselves?  You  know 
that  your  orators  are  but  endeavoring  to  galvan¬ 
ize  a  dead  body  into  artificial  life.  You  are  well 
aware  that  your  mass-meeting  demonstrations 
are  nothing  but  huge  galvanic  batteries  at  play. 
What  means  your  desperate  attempt  to  glue  your 
broken  fortunes  together  with  those  of  other 
parties  ?  Do  you  think  this  is  the  way  to  cheat 
destiny  out  of  its  dues'?  Is  it  your  ambition  to 
have  your  descendants  read  in  the  history  of  our 
days,  there  were  men  living  in  1800  that  with  in¬ 
stincts  so  depraved  that  when  they  could  not 
accomplish  that  which  was  evil,  they  endeavored 
at  least,  to  prevent  that  which  was  good  ? 

And  you  who  are  warned  by  this  sacred 
voice  of  conscience  that  you  are  doing  wrong 
in  adhering  to  Douglas,  and  yet  obey  the  com¬ 
mand  of  party,  hear  me :  Is  this  party  drill 
a  discipline  so  omnipotent«rm  idol  that  you  would 
sacrifice  upon  its  altar  your  independence, 
your  manhood  and  all  thjtt  constitutes  your 
moral  worth  ? 

And  you  who  claim  the  exclusive  privilege  of 
Swearing  by  tlie  Constitution  and  the  laws,  will 
you  stamp  the  evidences  of  hypocrisy  upon  your 
brow  by  indirectly  indorsing  him  who  has  done 
more  than  any  other  living  man  to  undermine 
the  Constitution  and  pervert  the  laws  ?  Will  you 
permit  your  political  hucksters  to  barter  away 
not  only  your  votes,  but  your  consciences  and 
your  honor. 

But  let  the  conspirators  come  on:  we  defy 
them.  Go  on  with  your  coalition's,  which  are 


made  the  distinct  understanding  that  those  who 
unite  to-day  are  to  cheat  each  other  to-morrow. 
Has  it  become  a  ruling  principle  in  your  parties 
that  the  ‘‘rank  and  file  have  no  rights  which  the 
“  leaders  are  bound  to  respect?”  You  will  find 
out  your  mistake.  Look  around  you.  Do  you 
see  thousands  leaving  your  banners,  unwilling  to 
submit  to  your  treacherous  schemes,  to  rob  the 
people  of  their  elections.  Do  you  know  what 
that  means  ?  It  means  that  the  man  rises  above 
the  partisan.  It  means  the  revival  of  conscience 
in  our  politics.  It  is  the  true  sovereignty  of  the 
people  vindicating  itself.  [Cheers.] 

Now,  build  up  your  mole-hills,  and  call  them 
impregnable  fortresses.  It  seems  you  do  not 
know  how  small  they  are.  The  logic  of  things 
will  not  roll  its  massive  will  over  them.  Your 
puny  contrivances  will  leave  no  trace  behind  to 
tell  your  doleful  story. 

Sir,  only  those  whose  hearts  are  unmoved  by 
great  moral  impulses  can  fail  to  see  that  we  are 
in  the  midst  of  a  great  moral  revolution.  They 
cannot  prevent  final  victory.  I  firmly  believe 
they  cannot  retard  it.  No,  they  are  aiding  it  in 
spite  of  themselves  ;  for  their  general  rottenness 
demonstrates  its  necessity.  Douglas  himself 
is  powerfully  promoting  its  progress.  He  has 
taught  the  people  of  America  a  great,  sublime 
lesson. 

I  think  it  wTas  Senator  Pugh  who  once  said 
that  if  Douglas  were  struck  down  by  the  South, 
he  would  take  his  bleeding  corpse  and  show  it  to 
the  youth  of  the  North-West  as  an  example 
of  Southern  gratitude.  Let  that  modern  Mark 
Antony  come  in  with  his  dead  Caesar  (pardon 
me,  it  is  neither  Caesar  dead  nor  Mark  Antony 
living),  let  him  bring  in  his  bleeding  corpse,  and 
1  would  suggest  the  funeral  oration.  Let  hint 
say  to  the  youth  of  the  American  Republic: 

“  This  is  Douglas.  Look  at  him.  For  every’ 

“  wound  the  South  inflicted  upon  him,  he  has,, 
“struck  a  blow  at  the  liberties  of  his  country* 

‘  men.  Let  him  serve  as  a  warning  example  that  r 
“a  man  may  be  a  traitor  to  liberty,  and  yet  not 
“  become  a  favorite  of  the  Slave  Power.  Mark 
“  him.  By  false  Popular  Sovereignty  he  tried  to 
“  elevate  himself ;  a  true  Popular  Sovereignty 
“  strikes  him  down.”  [Loud  applause.] 

If  the  youth  of  America  profit  by  this  lesson,  . 
then  it  may  be  said  that  even  Douglas  has  done 
some  service  to  his  country.  [Laughter.]  Then 
peace  be  with  him — his  mission  is  fulfilled. 

But  now  we  have  to  fulfill  ours.  False  Popular 
Sovereignty  is  down.  Freemen,  it  is  for  you  to  see 
to  it,  that  true  Popular  Sovereignty  triumph. 

Citizens  of  New  York,  when  after  the  adjourn¬ 
ment  of  the  Convention  which  nominated  that 
great  and  good  man  Abraham  Lincoln  for  the 
Presidency,  I  addressed  the  people  of  my  State 
again  for  the  first  time,  I  said  to  them:  “Let 
“  Wisconsin  stretch  her  hand  across  the  great 
“  lakes  and  grasp  the  hand  of  New  York  Let 
“  it  be  known  that  New  York  and  Wisconsin, 

“  who  stood  together  to  the  last  for  Seward  in 
“the  Convention,  will  stand  first  and  foremost  in. 

“  the  battle  for  Lincoln  and  Liberty.”  Wisconsin 
will  redeem  her  pledge  on  the  6th  of  November. 
Men  of  New  York  we  look  to  you  for  a  response. 
[Prolonged  cheering.] 


y 


